CHAIRMAN: Mr. Joseph Voyame (Switzerland)
VICE-CHAIRMEN: Mr. Alexis Dipanda Mouelle (Cameroon), Mr. Ricardo
Gil Lavedra (Argentina), Mr. Dimitar N. Mikhailov (Bulgaria)
RAPPORTEUR: Mr. Peter Thomas Burns (Canada)
MEMBERS: Ms. Christine Chanet (France), Ms. Socorro Diaz Palacios
(Mexico), Mr. Yuri A. Khitrin (Soviet Union), Mr. Antonio P. Perlas
(Philippines), Mr. Bent Sorensen (Denmark)
members attended the seventh session of the Committee except Ms.
Socorro Dias Palacios.
||H.U.P. v. Spain, Comm. 6/1990, U.N. Doc. A/47/44, at
81 (CAT 1991)
||Report of the Comm. against Torture, U.N. GAOR, 47th
Sess., Supp. No. 44, U.N. Doc. A/47/44, Annex V, at 81 (May 8, 1992)
against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Meeting on 12 November 1991,
Adopts the following:
Decision on Admissibility
1. The author of the communication is I. U. P., currently residing in
France. She submits the communication on behalf of her brother, of the
Basque separatist organization ETA, currently in detention in Spain. The
brother claims to have been maltreated at the time of his arrest on 2 April
1990, to have been tortured by the guardia civil from 2 to 7 April 1990, and
to be subjected to degrading treatment during his present detention.
2. Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee
against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22
of the Convention.
3. Article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention precludes the Committee
from considering any communication from an individual, unless it has
ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic
remedies. The author herself concedes that an examining magistrate in
Alcada-de-Hénarès has recently ordered an investigation into the allegations
of torture against her brother H. U. P. and that there has been no
obstruction of justice in that respect. Accordingly, the Committee finds
that the requirements of article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention have
not been met.
4. The Committee therefore decides:
(a) That the communication is inadmissible;
(b) That this decision may be reviewed under rule 109 of the Committee's
rules of procedure upon receipt of a written request by or on behalf of the
alleged victim containing information to the effect that the reasons for
inadmissibility no longer apply;
(c) That this decision shall be communicated to the author and, for
information, to the State party.
[Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the