CAT/C/72/D/992/2020 Gallardo Martínez the status of a victim of torture, although, to date, he has not been notified of that step, and that, on 29 March 2021, the Executive Commission for Victim Support registered as indirect victims Felicita Gallardo Martínez and the children L.K.G.C., X.K.G.C. and E.R.K.G.C., while the registration of the other complainants as such remains pending. The complainants submit that, contrary to the State party’s allegations, the commission of the crime of torture was in fact recognized by this means. With regard also to comprehensive reparation for the harm done, the complainants also report that Mr. Gallardo Martínez submitted a request for reparation to the Executive Commission for Victim Support, in which he requested measures of restitution, rehabilitation, compensation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. The request was assigned number CEAV/CIE/034/2020 and processed, but no information is available on its status. The complainants also state that Mr. Gallardo Martínez continues to suffer the effects and sequelae of the injuries noted in various medical reports, and that his private doctor – who has experience in treating patients who were victims of torture – found him to be suffering from “chronic tension headache and sleep disorders as a direct result of the traumatic event referred to” and “metabolic disorders resulting from exposure in prison to food of dubious quality and rich in unsaturated fatty acids”. 5.8 Lastly, with regard to the violation of article 15 of the Convention, the complainants reiterate that, although Mr. Gallardo Martínez was forced to sign a confession under torture, there was never any real evidence against him. In fact, they recall that the statement by a person who incriminated him was declared invalid by an indirect amparo decision ordering the exclusion of that statement from the evidence, as it had been obtained under physical and psychological torture (see para. 2.27 above). Thus, the illegal arrest and prison term of 5 years and 7 months were based on the alleged confession of Mr. Gallardo Martínez obtained under torture, and on a statement by a third party also obtained under torture. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim submitted in a complaint, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee notes that Mr. Gallardo Martínez’s case was brought to the attention of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. However, the Committee notes in the first place that the mandate of the Working Group concerns, ratione materiae, the issue of arbitrary deprivation of liberty and not torture. With regard to the consideration of the case by the Special Rapporteur, the Committee recalls that extra-conventional procedures or mechanisms established by the Commission on Human Rights or the Human Rights Council, whose mandates are to examine and report publicly on human rights situations in specific countries or territories or on cases of widespread human rights violations worldwide, do not constitute procedures of international investigation or settlement within the meaning of article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention.12 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the examination of Mr. Gallardo Martínez’s case by these procedures does not preclude it from examining the present complaint. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s allegations that domestic remedies have not been exhausted because the preliminary investigations into the complaint of torture are still pending and that the complainants have not reported any failure to conduct or any delay in the investigations by initiating amparo proceedings. The Committee further notes that the complainants have pointed out that the remedy of amparo is an extraordinary remedy that does not have to be exhausted, and that the appeals filed continue to be unreasonably prolonged almost eight years after the events. 12 GE.22-01556 Niyonzima v. Burundi (CAT/C/53/D/514/2012), para. 7.1. 11