Videotape submission by the author

Additional comments by the author

The author is represented by counsel.

Facts as submitted by the author

The facts as presented by the author

The author is not represented by counsel.

The author is not represented by counsel.

The author is not represented by counsel.

The communication was submitted by the author personally.

Comments by the author on the State party's submissions

The author is represented by counsel, Mr. Achilleas Demetriades.

The author is represented by counsel, Miquel Nadal Borràs.

The author is represented by Mr. José Luis Mazón Costa.

The author is represented by counsel (Mrs. Encarnación Caballero Oliver).

The author is represented by counsel, Mr. José Luis Mazón Costa.

The author is represented by counsel, Mr. José Javier Uriel Batuecas.

Several requests by the author for clarification of these terms were unsuccessful.

Procedural issues Substantiation of claims by author Admissibility ratione materiae

Procedural issues Substantiation of claim by author Admissibility ratione materiae

The author alleges a violation by Spain of article 11 of the Covenant.

Neither the author nor the State party have specified what precise kind of attire the author wore and which was referred to as hijab by both parties.

The author also claims that by hearing these motions in the absence of the author, the District Court violated article 379, paragraph 5, of the Civil Proceedings Code.

(e) Steps taken by the author and or victim to exhaust domestic remedies

Procedural issues Substantiation of claims by author Exhaustion of domestic remedies

2.2 The author claims that he was set up and framed by the police.

The author commented on the State party's observations by letter of 14 November 2002.

2.1 The author was employed as a temporary worker by the Fruta Romu company.

The author has been battered by this same man, her former common law husband.

The author considers that the judge invented a scenario based on simple remarks made by the author during the trial which were subsequently used to support a trumped up charge, despite all the lies told by Ms. Gascon.

The author thus disagrees with the shorter length of punishment claimed by the State party.

On 25 November 1996, the court rejected an application for review filed by the author.

The communication also appears to raise issues under article 7 of the Covenant, with regard to the author and her son, although this provision was not directly invoked by the author.

The author claims that not a single request made by the defence and by his son were considered or granted by the court.

According to the author, approximately two weeks later, a second contempt order was issued by the Chief Justice, clarifying that, despite earlier warnings, the author had persisted in disturbing court proceedings.

The Committee further notes the medical certificates supplied by the author indicating the existence of injuries.

2.4 The author states that there have been civil proceedings regarding L. 's access to the family's residence, a 2 and a half room apartment (of 54 by 56 square metres) jointly owned by L. F. and the author.

In fact, for the greater part of the proceedings, the author was represented by two lawyers.

On 30 June 1997, the Provincial High Court of Valladolid rejected an appeal by the author.

The judgement handed down by these judges was silent on all the evidence presented by the author to prove his innocence.

The author states that he complained of these incidents to the judicial authorities, but there is no indication in the file that the author appealed the decisions handed down by the lower courts.

The State party would therefore wish to give careful consideration to the dangers claimed by the author.

According to the author, the practice of abortion is openly facilitated and sponsored by the State party.

In his appeal, the author cited the Piersak case decided by the European Court of Human Rights.

In any case, the author submits that the procedure by which the author was said to be notified of the forthcoming hearing was improper , as it cannot be ascertained whether an oral or phone call as required by the statute was indeed made.

2.22 From 2001, while in prison, the author allegedly experienced extensive suffering provoked by kidney stones.