The case of Raul Angel Fuentes Villota v. Spain. The decision of the UN Committee against Torture dated April 22, 2025. Message No. 1108/2021. The author claimed that none of his complaints of ill-treatment and acts of torture had been examined. During the proceedings, he repeatedly stated that he had been subjected to torture and other ill-treatment, but the judicial authorities ignored his allegations and failed in their duty to investigate. The Committee concluded that the facts submitted to it indicated a violation of certain provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The legal position of the UN Committee against Torture: In accordance with article 12 of the Convention, the Committee must decide whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that acts amounting to torture have been committed against the author, and if so, whether the State party's authorities have fulfilled their obligation to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation in this regard. The speed of the investigation is of particular importance both from the point of view of preventing the continuation of the above-mentioned acts against the victim, and due to the fact that, as a rule, physical traces of torture, unless they have irreversible and serious consequences, disappear quickly enough, which is explained by the methods of their application (paragraph 7.2 of the Decision).
The Committee recalls that article 13 of the Convention does not require the formal submission of a complaint of torture in accordance with the procedure provided for by domestic law, nor does it require the victim to explicitly declare his desire to institute criminal proceedings in connection with this crime.; The victim's statement alone about bringing the relevant facts to the attention of the State authorities is sufficient to create an obligation to consider such a statement as an indirect, but unequivocal desire of the victim to seek a prompt and impartial investigation, as required by this provision of the Convention (paragraph 7.5 of the Decision).
Investigations of crimes related to torture or ill-treatment should be aimed at establishing the nature and circumstances of the alleged acts, identifying the persons who may have been involved in them, providing victims with adequate compensation and combating impunity for violations of the Convention (paragraph 7.5 of the Decision).
The Committee recalls that one of the reasons why the crime of torture should not be subject to a statute of limitations is that torture has irreversible consequences, and recognizing the statute of limitations would deprive victims of the reparations, compensation and rehabilitation to which they are entitled. For many victims, there is no reduction in the harm caused over time, and in some cases there may even be an aggravation of such harm as a result of post-traumatic stress, requiring medical, psychological and social assistance, which is often unavailable to those victims who have not received compensation. States parties should ensure that all victims of torture or ill-treatment, regardless of when the violation occurred or whether it was committed by the previous regime or with its acquiescence, can exercise their rights to seek legal remedies and receive redress (paragraph 7.6 of the Decision).
The UN Committee against Torture's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: in the light of the actions described by the author, which he claimed to have suffered during incommunicado detention, medical reports, and the fact that the author had repeatedly made allegations of torture, the Committee concluded that there was a prima facie (at first glance the view (Latin)) of evidence of torture, which has not been refuted by the State party. The Committee noted that the failure to investigate the author's allegations was incompatible with the obligation to conduct a prompt investigation, as provided for in article 12 of the Convention (paragraph 7.2 of the Decision).
The Committee has noted the author's claim that during his trial, the Supreme Court ruled that the author's guilt was established regardless of how his testimony was obtained, without considering whether torture actually took place. The Committee considered that, even taking into account the State party's argument that all forensic experts had been heard during the trial that established the author's guilt, it did not follow from the information on the case submitted to the Committee and the State party's observations that prompt and impartial measures had been taken. investigative actions in connection with allegations of torture or ill-treatment in order to establish the nature and circumstances of the relevant acts, as well as the identity of those who may have been involved in them (paragraph 7.5 of the Decision).
Conclusions of the UN Committee against Torture: The facts presented testified to a violation of the author's rights under articles 12, 13 and 14, considered in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention.