CAT/C/72/D/992/2020 was damaged owing to the stigmatization suffered by her family. When her brother was exposed and criminalized by the media and the moral integrity of her family was called into question, she was forbidden to go near the children because she was considered a “bad influence”. She also suffered ill-treatment at the prison, and was refused entry on three occasions. 3.17 The stigmatization suffered by his family had a severe psychological effect on Saúl Gallardo Martínez, which, in turn, had an impact on his work life, as he was singled out on account of the stigma attached to his brother’s arrest as a kidnapper. This situation led him to develop a depressive disorder. Due to his financial situation, he was unable to visit the prison, and his interpersonal relationship with his brother was affected as a result. 3.18 Violeta Gallardo Martínez started to experience paranoia, anxiety attacks and symptoms of high stress. Her financial situation also deteriorated, as she had to bear most of the costs of supporting of her niece, the daughter of Ms. Barranco Hernández, who devoted her time to demanding justice. 3.19 Felicita Gallardo Martínez also suffered serious psychological and emotional damage as a result of her brother’s detention. As she did not live in the state of Oaxaca, it was particularly difficult for her to be involved in the process of demanding justice, which caused her emotional anguish and also affected her interpersonal relationships with the members of her family. 3.20 Lastly, the complainants allege a violation of article 15 of the Convention because Mr. Gallardo Martínez was forced to sign an alleged confession of involvement in criminal acts, which the Public Prosecution Service used to justify his detention in prison for more than five years, for fear that the threats made against his family would be carried out. 3.21 Accordingly, the complainants request the following forms of reparation: (a) the prosecution, trial and punishment of all those responsible; and (b) comprehensive reparation for all victims, through: (i) specialized medical and psychological rehabilitation that is respectful of their worldview; (ii) protection, so that they can resume their work in defence of human rights; (iii) compensation; (iv) public acknowledgement of responsibility and a public apology, the modalities of which should be agreed with the victims; and (v) measures to ensure non-repetition, including: a. the cessation of all discourse that might delegitimize and criminalize the work of human rights defenders, and the launching of an inclusive process for designing a comprehensive public policy for the protection of human rights defenders; b. the creation and implementation of a national register of arrests; c. easy and rapid access for all victims of torture to comprehensive reparation processes, through prompt and immediate inclusion in the National Register of Victims, and the design of care and comprehensive reparation protocols by the Executive Commission for Victim Support; and d. the prompt adoption and implementation of the National Programme for the Prevention and Punishment of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its observations of 23 November 2020, the State party explains that criminal proceedings were opened against Mr. Gallardo Martínez for the kidnapping of two minors and that he had also been arrested in flagrante delicto in the commission of offences related to organized crime. The State party indicates that these criminal proceedings were closed in December 2018. 4.2 The State party argues that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, since the preliminary investigations launched into the complaint of torture are still pending. The State party submits that the complainants have not reported any failure to conduct or any delay in the investigations and that they can initiate amparo proceedings to address the failings of the authorities responsible for clarifying the unlawful conduct reported. 4.3 On the merits, the State party claims that it is not responsible for violations of the Convention. In particular, with regard to articles 1 and 2, the State party argues that the burden of proof is on the complainants. With regard to the allegations of torture at the time of his arrest, the State party points out that the injuries referred to in the medical reports did GE.22-01556 9