by seven lawyers in the proceedings against her, not a single complaint or report of maltreatment had been presented via the domestic means of redress and that Court N° 44 had initiated the investigation without any application from the individual concerned, who was not even represented in court as an interested party when the compulsory offer of recourse was made to her. This attitude on the part of the author was curious since at the same time she reported the alleged maltreatment to several international bodies. From 9 September 1994, the date on which she requested the revocation of the stay of proceedings, until 4 April 1995, when the shelving order was made, the author did not request any investigation or produce any evidence. Her report of alleged maltreatment was inconsistent with this passive behaviour—not taking any action via the domestic means of redress, not being represented as a party directly involved in the official investigation, and reactivating an investigation but taking no part in it for six months. statement and the offer of recourse was made to her. On that same date the Judge authorized an application to Central Court of Investigation N° 2 of the National High Court for official copies of the records of the medical examinations carried out by the forensic medicine staff of that Court. On 30 April, when these copies had still not been received, the Judge sent an urgent reminder. The papers were delivered on 13 May. On 2 June the Judge requested the medical examiner of her Court to make a report; this report was delivered on 28 July. On 3 August the Judge summoned the medical examiner who had attended the author during her detention. On 30 October the Judge set the date of 17 November for receipt of the statement of the medical examiner and also authorized an application for information from the Penitentiary Centre about the time at which the author had been examined and the development of the injuries. On 23 December the Penitentiary Centre delivered the requested information. On 2 February the Judge issued the shelving order. 6.2 The State party submitted, with respect to article 13 of the Convention, that in so far as this article refers to the right to complain, its application in the present case would be limited to the period beginning with the author’s representations to Court of Investigation N° 44 following the order for a stay of proceedings, representations which marked the reopening of the investigation. Less than 15 months elapsed between the reopening of the investigation and the decision of the Constitutional Court. The investigation was in progress for six of these months, and during theses six months the author, assisted by lawyers, did not submit a single document to the Court and did not produce or propose any evidence. In the remaining nine months after the shelving order, the applications to the Court of Investigation, the Provincial High Court and the Constitutional Court were submitted, heard and ruled upon. Accordingly, the State party did not fail to fulfil its obligations under article 13 of the Convention. 6.4 These facts show that there was no tardiness or delay in the conduct of the investigation. At no time did the author complain through the domestic channels about delays in the preliminary investigation, either before or after the temporary shelving order, once she had become represented in the proceedings. Author’s comments 7.1 In her comments on the State party’s submission, the author maintains that in the five forensic examinations she underwent during the more than 100 hours for which she was held incommunicado she indicated that she had been subjected to maltreatment. The author encloses copies of the five medical reports which were prepared. In the first it is stated that “she does not mention physical ill-treatment, although she was kept hooded for many hours”. According to the second, “she does not mention physical ill-treatment although does speak of threats and insults”. In the third “the person concerned says that she is very nervous, has not slept and has not received food. She mentions having received ill-treatment consisting of blows to the head, but there are no signs of violence”. The fourth says that “she mentions ill-treatment consisting of blows, but there are no signs of violence”. In the fifth “she mentions ill-treatment consisting of blows and of having been kept undressed. No signs of violence are apparent upon examination”. 6.3 With regard to article 12 of the Convention, the State party submitted that the Spanish system of protection against maltreatment has procedures for safeguarding that right, including in cases, such as the present one, when the party concerned takes no action. When the author entered the Penitentiary Centre on 3 February 1992, she was given a medical examination. The findings of this examination reached the High Court of Madrid on 13 February for distribution. On 17 February they were delivered to Court of Investigation N° 44. On 21 February Court N° 44 issued an order to begin a preliminary investigation and sent an official letter to the Director of the Penitentiary Centre ordering the author to appear on 7 March. She did not appear on that date, and on 9 March a new summons was issued for 13 March. On 13 March the author made a 7.2 In her statement to Court of Investigation N° 2 of the National High Court on 2 February 1992, the author spoke of having sustained many blows, having had a bag put over her head until she nearly suffocated, of the use of electrodes, threats and insults, and of having been forced to undress. 40