APPL[CATIO^ ^'32829/96 Luis IRURETAGOYENA v/FRANCE DECISION of 12 January 1998 on the admissibility of the application Article 3 of the Convention aj Regardless of the applicant Mctwi s conduct nothing can justifx acts of torture nr inhuman or degrading treatment b) Expulsion of a person may raise an issue under this provision and hence engage the responsibthtx of the State nhere substantial grounds have been sho»n for belie\ing that the person concerned would Jace a teat risk oj being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 in the country to which he is to be expelled c) The existence of a risk of lU-ireatment must be assessedprimanl) with reference to those facts which were known or ought to have been known to the respondent State at the time of the expulsion but the Convention organs may have regard to information which comes to light subsequently d) Expulsion to Spam of a person claiming that he would be subjected to treatment contrary to this provision in that country In assessing the risk, the Commission takes account of the fact that, according to a report of the Committee for the Prevention oj Torture ill-treatment b\ the security forces is no longer a matter of practice in Spain even if it would be premature to conclude that such methods have been eradicated Furthermore the mere/act that the applicant had been an active membei of ETA was clearly insufficient for the French authorities to conclude at the point at which the expulsion order was made and executed that he would be subjected to treatment contrary to this provision 99 Article 26 of the Convention a) The obligation to exhaust domestic lemedies requires only that an applicant make use of remedies likely to be effective and adequate b) M'here an indnidual complains that his expulsion to a particular country exposes him to a serious danger appeals without suspensive effect cannot be consideud ejjti live c) In Fiance an appeal against an expulsion order to the Administrative Court cannot be considered an effective remedy given that such an appeal does not suspend enfoicement of the order in question THE FACTS The applicant is a Spanijih citizen of Basque ongin He was bom m 1956 in Tolosa Before the Commission he was represented by Mr Didier Rouget, a senior lecturei at the University of ParK VUi The facts o( the case, as submitted by the parties, ma> be summansed as follows A The particular circumstances of the case a) The apphcant & deportation from France The applicant, who is a member of the Basque separatist organisation Euskodi la Askatasuna ("ETA"), entered France on an unspecified date and remained there illegally He was arrested on 5 June 1992 in the course of a search carried out under warrant in an apartment in the 20th arrondissement of Pans, during which the police discovered a fireann "category l" and "category 4" ammumtion, explosives and stolen and forged documents Subscquentlv, the applicant was charged with cnminal conspiiacy and remanded in custody on 9 June 1992 On 20 December 1995, Pans Cnminal Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to fi\e years' impnsonment and a fi\e-year internal exclusion order {interdiction de sejour) for possession of a fireann and ammunition without a licence, using forged administrative documents and conspiracy with a view to commithng one or more senous cnmes or one or more major offences punishable by ten years impnsonment The applicant was scheduled to be released on 9 June 1996 100 Dunng his sentence, the applicant was informed that deportation proceedings had been commenced against hiin On 20 May 1996. the Aliens' Residence and Deportation Board attached to Creted tribunal de grande instance met and recommended that the applicant be deported On 4 June 1996, the applicant took preventive action, filing an application with Pans Administrative Court for the annulment of any deportation order which might be issued against him, or, in the alternative, a stay of execution of such order In the application, he pointed out that no request for his extradition had been made by the Spanish auihonties and that his sentence had not included an order excluding him from French temtory He expressed fears about being subjected to interrogation under torture without any judicial control, referring to a number of reports on Spam by international organisations, such as reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (hereinafter the "CPT") ot the Council of Europe, the findings and recommendations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee and Amnesty International reports He invoked Article 3 of the Convention He also argued that handmg liim over to the Spanish secunty forces, m execution of any deportation order, would involve a depnvation of libertv contrary to Article 5 of the Convention, para 1 (c) and (f) and paras 3 and 4 The applicant also invoked Article 6 para 2 and Articles 8, 13 and 18 of the Convention His apphcahon to Fans Administrative Court is still pending On 5 June 1996, a deportation order regarding the applicant was issued and served on him on 8 June 1996 The same day, the applicant was released from Fresnes Pnson and transferred bv the French police to the Franco-Spamsh border post at Perthus According to the Government, when he crossed the border, the Spanish Civil Guard checked his papers and proceeded to anest him in accordance with the instructions of ajudge of the third Audiencta Nacional investigative tnbunal, who had authonsed him to be transferred from the border post to the headquarters of the Civil Guard According to the applicant, he was handed over to the Spanish Civil Guard b) The cnminal proceedings agamst the applicant in Spam The applicant was taken to Madnd and held in custody until 11 June 1996, when he was brought before ajudge of the third Audiencta Nacional investigative tnbunal In a decision of 11 June 1996, the judge ordered that the applicant should not communicate with anyone else for one month and remanded him in custody on the charge of membership of an armed group On 14 December 1996. the applicant was released after posting bail of 2,000.000 pesetas On 16 December 1996, the Audiencta Nacional issued an order forbidding the applicant to leave Spanish temtory 101 c) The alleged dl-treatment of the applicant in Spam On 2 December 1996, the applicant filed a cnminal complaint with San Sebastian investigating judge No 2 descnbing ill-treatment to w hicb he claimed to have been subjected by the Spanish secunty forces dunng his custody The contents of the complamt may be summarised as follows According to the apphcant, while being taken to Madnd in a police van, the Civil Guard officers escorting him uncovered his back, put ointment or liquid on his upper back and kidney area and then subjected him to electnc shocks while at the same time hitting, insulting and threatening him On amval in Madnd on Sunday 9 June at about a quarter past midnight, he was locked in a cell One of the guards who had escorted him read him his nghts from an iudiencia Nacional document Shortly afterwards he was taken to an "interview" room near his cell While being questioned, he was again struck and threatened Screams were heard from a neighbounng cell and he was threatened with the same treatment Then his intenogators again struck him with their hands and with a broomstick shaped like a "T" on his nghl big toe, his testicles and the backs of his legs At about 9 am on Sunday morning he was visited by the police surgeon who took his pulse and blood pressure The applicant told him that he had been given electric shocks and asked him to examine his back with a stethoscope The doctor noted his complaints Alter the doctor had gone, he was again taken to an "inten lew" room where he was questioned and the pohce earned out a handwnting test in the presence of a lawyer who had been officially assigned to him After a break in his cell he was again taken to the "interview" room, where he was forced to drop his trousers and sit on a padded chair A hood was put over his head and his arms were fastened to the back of the chair His legs were also made fast and moistened with a substance like the one that had been used on him in the police van Then the electnc shock sessions started, this lime using a much higher voltage than the prev lous ones These sessions alternated with sessions in which the hood was used to partly suffocate him Then he was told to move his head if he had something to say Some time later, a police officer came in, took the hood off and gave him some water He was never able to sec the officers' faces When the "interview" was over, he slept - he did not know for how long On the morning of 10 June 1996, the applicant was again interrogated, then an officially-assigned lawyer attended him in the presence ot five Civil Guards During the afternoon of 10 June, he was questioned about his life and the political situation in tlie Basque country He was seen by the pohce surgeon, who examined him and asked him 102 if he had slept w ell He was later taken to another officially-assigned lawyer to identify people from photographs This was at about 6pm He was then taken back to his cell and to the "interview" room where he had to undergo further sessions of being suffocated with the hood and beaten He was then taken to an officially-assigned lawyer, m whose presence he signed a statement While there, he saw that it was 7am on 11 June 1996 He had spent more than a day without sleeping 1 hat day, the applicant was taken to the Audiencta Nacional. where he was again visited by the police surgeon whom he had seen at the time of the intenogations The apphcant told him about the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected and showed him the marks on his body The doctor noted what he said, examined him and encouraged ium to tell the whole story to the court When he was brought before Audiencia Nacional investigating judge No 3 he was not allowed to have the assistance of his lawyer as the judge dictated that he was forbidden to communicate with anyone Thejudge asked him if he had been examined by d doctor, then started taking a statement from him At the end of the heanng, the judge ordered that he be detained incommunicado He was taken by the Civil Guard 10 Madnd 11 - Meco Pnson, amving there on 11 June 1996 at about 5 p m On amval he was examined by a doctor who saw the marks on his body, noted them, copied his findings into his medical report and prescnbed the applicant three paracetamol tablets a day for several davs The apphcant was held in solitary confinement for a fortnight, then transfened to the ordinary regime on 23 August 1996 At this point, he had severe and increasing pain in his nght leg and lumbar region Since 12 August 1996 he has been treated with pam-killers and antiinflammatory tablets and a vitamin complex B Relevant domestic law a) Exclusion from French temtory Section 131-30 of the Criminal Code "Where the law so provides, any alien convicted of a senous cnme (crime) or major offence (delit) may be sentenced to be excluded from French temtory, either permanently or for a penod of up to ten years An order excluding a convicted person from French temtory automatically compnses aulhonty lo expel that person on the expiry of his sentence of impnsonment (where applicable) 103 b) Exclusion from areas wilhin French territory Section 131 31 of the Cnminal Code "An internal exclusion order (interdiction de sejour) prohibits the convicted person from entenng certain areas determined bv the court It also entails the taking of certain measures to keep the person in quesfion under surveillance and to assist him The list ot prohibited areas and the surveillance and assistance measures may be modified by the judge responsible for the execution of sentences m accordance with the procedure laid down m the Code of Cnmmal Procedure An internal exclusion order cannot be made for longer than ten years (in the case of a person convicted of a senous crime) or five years (m the case of a person convicted of a major offence)" COMPLAINTS (Extract) The apphcant complains that the decision to hand him over to the Spanish secunty forces involved the risk of an irreversible, and particularly grave, violation of human nghts in particular, the nsk of his being subjected to torture and inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention He claims that these fears mmed out to be well-founded since, after being handed over to the Civ il Guard, he was indeed subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 He also alleges a violation of Article S of the Convention, para 1 (c) and (f) and paras 3 and 4, claiming that his forcible removal to Spain was in reality a "disguised extradition' aimed at secunng his detention and conviction in that country PROCEEDiNGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION The application was introduced on 4 June 1996 and registered on 30 August 1996 On 4 June 1996, the applicant requested the Commission to intercede on his behalf with ttie French Government so as to prevent it from deporting him to Spam The same day, the President of the Commission decided that it was not appropnate to grant that request, which had been submitted under Rule 36 of the Commission s Rules of Procedure On 24 February 1997, the Commission decided to bnng the applicant's complaints under Articles 3 and 5 para 1 of the Convention to the notice of the French Government and to mvite them to submit written observations thereon The Government submitted their observations on 19 June 1997, after an extension of tlie time-hmit fixed for this purpose The applicant replied on 19 September 1997 104 THE LAW (Extract) 1 The applicant i„oniplains that the decision lo hand him over to the Spanish liccunly forces involved the risk of his being subjected to torture and mJiuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, which prov ides as follows "No one shall be subjected to torture or to mhiiman or degrading tredtment or punishment" The respondent Government raise a preliminary objection to the effect that domestic remedies have not been exhausted Specifically, they point out, firstly, that the applicant failed to lodge an appeal against the judgment of Pans Cnminal Court of 20 November 1995 sentencing him to a five-year internal exclusion order and, secondly, that the appeals which he lodged with Pans Administrative Court against the deportation ordet are stiii pending The applicant contests this view With regard, firstly, to the five-year internal exclusion order imposed on him by Pans Cnminal Court, the applicant points out that, unlike an order excluding someone from French temtory, an internal exclusion order can be made against French people as well as foreigners and can never prohibit a person from entenng the whole of French temtory or entail expulsion from French temtory Pans Cnminal Court sentenced him to a five-year internal exclusion order, not an order excluding him from French temtory, as the Government erroneously mainldiii Therefore, there is no relationship, m law, between the internal exclusion order made on 20 December 1995 by Pans Criminal Court and the deportation order of 5 June 1996 issued by the Minister of the Intenor In the present case, he is complaining only about the deportation order The Commission recalls that the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies requires only that an applicant should use the remedies hkely to be effective adequate and accessible Where a person alleges that being expelled would expose him to serious danger, appeals without suspensive effect cannot be regarded as effective (see No 10078/82, Dec 13 12 84, D R 41, p 103, No 12461/86, Dec 10 12 86, DR 51, p 258, No 19776.92 Dec 18 10 93, unpublished. HLR v France. Appendix to Comm Report 7 12 95 and No 31113/96, Dec 5I296,DR 87, p 151) In the present case, the action on the part of the respondent State authonties about which tlie applicant is complaining is the deportation order of 5 June 1996, and not the internal exclusion order made by Pans Cnmmal Court on 20 December 1995 The Government have not been able to show that an appeal lo the Admimstraljve Court has the effect of suspending the execution of a deportation order 105 Therefore, an appeal against the deportation order cannot be considered as effcchve in accordance with the generally-recognised rules of international law and the Government's preliminary objection that domestic remedies have not been exhausted cannot he allowed In the alternative, the Government submit that the complaint is unfounded The Government acknowledge that according to the case-law of the Convention oigans expulsion may raise an issue under Article 3 of the Convention where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned would face a real nsk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 if expelled to the other country in question Where this is the case, Article 3 implies an obhgation not to expel the convicted person to that country The Government emphasise that, in conforaiity with French law and in particular section 27 bis of the Ordinance of 2 August 1945 (as amended), the decision to deport the applicant to Spam was taken with due regard to the potential nsk of a breach of his Convention rights In this regard, the Government point out that the applicant never applied for political refugee status dunng the whole time he was in France Nor did he take steps to hnd a third country willing to accept him, so as to avoid being deported to Spain Moreover, the investigation earned out by the authonties, both judicial and administrative, into the applicant's situation failed to uncover well-substantiated personal factors capable of senously suggesting that he would be exposed to treatment contrary to Article 3 if he returned to Spain The Government add that, while the possibility that the applicant would be prosecuted m Spain could not be excluded, given his membership of ETA and his previous activities, this alone does not mean that the deportation order was in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, having regard to the fact that Spam is a member of the European Umon and a State governed by the rule of law, in which the courts safeguard respect for human nghts and individual liberties Spain has entered into international commitments concerning the protection of human rights such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights With respect lo the applicant's allegations that he suffered ill-treatment at the hands of the Civil Guard, the Government note that a cnminal complaint has been filed Willi San Sebastian investigating judge No 2 Therefore, it is for the Spanish judicial authonties to investigate this complamt in accordance with the relevant Spanish legislation 106 For his pan, the applicant submits that the fact that he ran the nsk of being subjected to torture and ill-treatment is corroborated by the reports of numerous international organisations on Spam and in particular by the findings and recommendations of the CPT in reports based on its visits to Spain The applicant also refers lo the findings and recommendations of the United Nafions Human Rights Committee, which, when examimng the report submitted by Spain under Article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Pohucal Rights, expressed its concern about the many reports It had received alleging that persons suspected of terronst activities had been subjected to ill-treatment and torture bv members of the secunty forces In response to the Government's argument that Spain is a State governed by the rule of law and a member of the European Union, the applicant points out that CPT reports concern only States which are members of the Council of Europe and parties to the European Convention on Human Rights, and that these reports record findings of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, which makes no distinction between Contracting Parties and other States The applicant also refers to a number of reports on Spain by independent nongovernmental organisations (hereinafter "NGOs"), such as Amnesty International the Association pour la Prevention de la Torture etc exposmg the practice of torture bv the Spanish security forces He adds that several other persons of Basque ongin handed over by France to the Spamsh secunty forces m similar circumstances have been tortured In his own case, the nsk of torture if he was deported to Spain appeared even more real and significant given that he had already been anested by the Spanish police in 1979 and depicted as an ETA militant by the Spanish authorities Therefore, there was a senous nsk that the Spamsh secunty forces would use every method, including unlawful ones, to obtain all the infomialion rhat he was assumed to have Further, the applicant rejects the Government's argument that the fact that he did not seek political refugee status or a third country willing to receive him amounts to a failure to demonstrate that he was at nsk of being treated in a maimer contrary to Article 3 of the Convenhon On this point, he argues tliat Article 3 protects everyone, not merely those seeking or having been granted retiigee status Finally, he claims that a State is under a positive obhgation not to expel an individual to a country where there is a risk of Article 3 of the Convention being violated Moreover, the apphcant complains that France deliberately handed him over to tlie Civil Guard, despite the fact that the culture and methods of this particular branch of the forces of law and order are cnticised by international organisations and even by many authonties within Spain Therefore, when the French authonties handed him over to the Civil Guard, who tortured him, they were perfectly aware of the potential consequences Finally, the applicant emphasises that the Civil Guard subjected him to d combination of vanous methods of ill-treatment, such as giving him electnc shocks, partially suffocating him by putting a plastic bag over his head, repeatedly hitting him (particularly on the head with the flat of their hands), shouting at Ium, utienng threats close up to his ears, threatening him in the form of making him listen to the screams 107 of other people being tortured in the same building and long intenogation sessions with sleep depnvation He points out that the presence of injunes caused by the Civil Guard dunng his penod in custody is confirmed by the medical reports of the police surgeon and the pnson doctor He affirms that he has had to follow a prolonged course of medical treatment as a result of the treatment to which he was subjected He considers that, having regard to the danger to which he was exposed, the French Government acted very inesponsibly, particularly by their refusal lo take account of the objective evidence of that danger The Commission recalls, firstly, that the Contracting States have the right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their Treaty obligations including the Convention to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (see Eur Court HR, Vilvarajah and Others v the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991 SenesAno 215, p 34, para 102) However expulsion by a Contracting State may give nse to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for beheving that the person m question would, if expelled to a certain country, face a real nsk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 In these circumstances. Article 3 implies the obligation not to expel the person in question to that country (see Eur Court HR, judgments in the cases of Soenng v the United Kingdom of 7 July 1989, Senes A no 161, p 35, paras 90-91 Cruz Varas and Others v Sweden of 20 March 1991 Senes A no 201. p 28 paras 69 70, Vijayanathan and Others v the United Kingdom op cit, p 34, para 103, Chahal v the United Kingdom of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 V, pp 1853-1855. paras 73-74 and 80, Ahmed v Austna of 17 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, p 2206, para 39, H LR V France of 29 April 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III, p 757, paras 33-34 and D v the United Kingdom of 2 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-111, p 791, para 46) It is also important to recall that Article 3, which enshnnes one of the most fundamental values of democratic society (see the above-mentioned Soenng judgment, p 34, para 88), prohibits, in absolute terms, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim s conduct (see the judgments in the cases of Ireland v the United Kingdom of 18 January 1978, Series A no 25, p 65, para 163, Chahal v the United Kingdom op cit, p 1855, para 79, Ahmed op cit, pp 2206- 2207, paras 40-41, HLR v France, op cit p 757, para 35 D v the United Kingdom, op cit, p 792 para 47 and, recently, Aydin v Turkey of 25 September 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997, para 8i) Where a Contracting State expels an alien from its temtory, its responsibility under Article 3 of the Convention is engaged if it thereby exposes him directly to senous danger of being treated in a manner contrary to that provision 108 In the present case, the Commission notes that, in rahfying the Convenhon, the Spanish State agreed to respect the nghts contained in it including Article 3 It also recognised the nght ot individual petition provided for by the Convention Hence, there IS a presumption that treatment contrary to Article 3 does not occur in that State The Commission recalls that the existence of a nsk of ill-treatment must be assessed pnmanly with reference to those facts which were known or ought to have been known to the respondent State at the time of the expulsion, even if the Convention organs may have regard to information which comes to light subsequently (see, mutatis mutandis. No 25342/94, Dec 4 9 95, D R 82 p 134) On this point, the Commission notes that, according to a CPT report, torture and ill-treatment by the secunty forces is no longer common prachce m Spam even if, in the hght of the alIegatioii> made, it would be premature to conclude that the use of such methods has been entirely rooted out Other international bodies, such as the United Nations Committee against Torture and the United Nations Human Rights Committee, have expressed tlieir concern about the situation in Spam in this regard The Commission also observes that the applicant was anested by the Civil Guard which according to tlie CPT report, is the law-enforcement agency most frequently accused of using unlawful methods It IS also true that die fact that the applicant had been an active membei of ETA may have exposed him to increased nsk, given that the Civil Guard might regard him as an important source of infonnahon about the activities of that organisation However the mere fact of his ETA membership could not suffice for the French authorities to conclude that the applicant ran a senous nsk of being treated in a manner contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in Spain The Commission notes that the applicant did not applj for political refugee status in France, nor has he demonstrated that he raised, before the French authonttes, particular circumstances relating to himself or his activities in Spain which would make it probable that he would be tortured or treated in any other manner prohibited under Article 3 In the light of the foregoing the Commission considers that, in the circumstances of the case, it appears difficult to conclude that, at the time at which the deportation order was made and enforced by the French authonties, there were reasonable grounds for beheving that the apphcant would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention m Spain As regards what happened after the applicant's amval in Spam the Commission recalls that the applicant will be able, if appropnate, to complain of this by means ot an application against Spam 109 Therefore, the Commission has reached the conclusion that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 27 para 2 of the Convention 2 The applicant, invoking Article 5 of the Convention, paras I (c) and (f), 3 and 4 submits that his forcible removal to Spain was in reality a "disguised extradition" designed to secure his detention and conviction in that country The relevant provisions of Article 5 are as follows "1 Everyone has the right to liberty and secunty of person No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescnbed by law c the law fill artest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bnnging him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when il is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so f the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthonscd entry into the country or of a person agamst whom action IS bemg taken with a view to deportation or extradition 3 Everyone anested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 L of this Article shall be brought promptly before ajudge or other officer authonsed by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to tnal withm a reasonable time or lo release pending tnal Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for tnal 4 Everyone who is depnved of his liberty by anest or delention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detentton shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawflil 110 The Government claim that the procedure followed in the applicant's case did not constitute "handing him over" lo the Spanish authonties, but enforcmg the deportation order m a perfectly lawful manner, in accordance with sections 26 bis and 27 bis of the Ordinance of 2 November 1945 (as amended) Under sectton 27 bis of the Oidinance of 1945, a person subject to a deportation order is to be sent to the country of which he is a national - save, of course, in the case of a refugee - or a country which has issued him with a travel document, or which he may lawfully enter, subject to the general proviso that the alien must not be sent to a country in which he will be exposed to danger to his life or liberty or to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention In the instant case, it has not been shown that when the decision to enforce the deportation order was taken, the applicant fell within the Scope of this general proviso, nor that he could point to another State which he could lawfully enter Section 26 bis of the Ordinance provides that a deportatton order may be enforced automatically on the release of the person concerned from his place of detention, in order to prevent him taking advantage of his return to freedom in order to go underground and revert to activities likely to endanger public safety Automatic enforcement of a deportation order necessanly involves the individual bemg escorted by French police to the border with the country to which he is bemg deported, in order to ensure that he does actually leave nattonal temtory The Government underline that the decision to enforce the order deporting the applicant to Spain was made entirely lawfully The Government also submit that the purpose of the proceedings brought against the applicant was not to circumvent an Indictments Division recommendation against extraditton, as in the Bozano case Indeed, in tliat case, the deportatton order was not served on the individual m question for a month, whereas in the present case the order was issued on 5 June 1996 and served on 8 June 1996 Therefore, the authonties had not used any ruses to keep the applicant in ignorance of events concerning him Finally, the Government observe that the circumstances of the applicant's deportation are very similar to those obtaining in the Urruttkoetxea v France case, which the Commission declared inadmissible on 5 December 1996 (see No 31113/96, Dec 5 5 96 DR 87, p 151) The applicant on the other hand, claims thai, contrary to the Government's assertions, the French authonties did indeed hand him over to the Spanish Civil Guard He states that, when he was taken to La Junquera border post, the French police had a conversation with the Civil Guard officers and exchanged documents Moreover, the 111 Civil Guard officers drew up a report confirming that he had been handed over by the French police which is on the file of the cnmmal case against him before the Audiencia Nacional It is also attested to by the vanous Spanish press articles about him Furthermore, he claims that it emerges from the Government's observations that the French authonties knew that he would be depnved of his liberty and taken to Madnd to be chaigcd, on the orders of a ludge of the third Audiencia Nacional investtgattve tnbunal The applicant claims that he has been the victim of a disguised extraditton in breach of the relevant pnnciples of international law He asserts that a deportatton order cannot be used to effect a disguised extradition and employed by one State in order to deliver someone up to the authonties of another State According to him, section 27 ^(5 of the 1945 Ordinance purely and simply forbade the French Government to deport him to Spam, since, on the facts, there was a real threat to his liberty m that country As legards section 26 bis of the 1945 Ordinance, he argues that the authorities' ability automatically to enforce a deportation order does not relieve the Government from their responsibilities, particularly the responsibility to follow lawful procedures and not to expel a foreigner to a country where his life, his physical safety or his freedom will be at nsk Accordingly, the power automattcally to enforce the deportation order did not, in law, give the French authorittcs any nght to hand him over to the Spanish secunty forces or to carry out a "disguised extradition" in lelation to him The Commission, having undertaken a thorough examinatton of the evidence, has found nothing to support the applicant's argument that his removal to Spain was made for any reason other than to enforce the deportatton order against him when his imprisonment in France came to an end In particular, it has not been demonstrated that the applicant was deported to Spain because of a request to that effect from the Spanish authonttes The Commission therefore considers that there is no substantial evidence to support the applicant's complaint of a breach of Article 5 of the Convention taken <is a whole It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 27 para 2 of the Convention 112