CAT/C/72/D/992/2020 6.4 The Committee recalls that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply if the application of such remedies is unreasonably prolonged or unlikely to bring effective relief.13 In the present case, the Committee notes that more than eight years have elapsed since the complainants first filed a complaint so that an investigation would be opened into the acts of torture in question, and that, despite the fact that the Public Prosecution Service had the information necessary to conduct a prompt and effective investigation that would allow those allegedly responsible to be identified and prosecuted, that recommendation 5/2018 of the National Human Rights Commission called for a prompt investigation 14 and that the Commission submitted complaints, dated 28 February and 30 August 2018, respectively, to the internal affairs unit of the federal police and to the Specialized Unit for the Investigation of Crimes Committed by Public Servants against the Administration of Justice of the Counsel General’s Office (see para. 2.18 above), no significant progress has been made in any of the investigations. The State party has not provided any justification for that considerable delay. 6.5 Under these circumstances, the Committee considers that domestic remedies have been unreasonably prolonged. Accordingly, the requirements of article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention do not preclude the Committee from examining the complaint on the merits. 6.6 The Committee considers the complainants’ claims under articles 1, 2 and 11 to 15 of the Convention to be sufficiently substantiated for the purpose of admissibility and thus declares them admissible and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has examined the complaint in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 7.2 Before proceeding to examine the complainants’ allegations as they relate to the articles of the Convention which they have invoked, the Committee must determine whether the acts to which Mr. Gallardo Martínez was subjected constitute acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 7.3 The Committee takes note of the complainants’ allegations that, during Mr. Gallardo Martínez’s arrest, he was beaten and dragged half-naked to a van in which, for approximately two hours, police officers forced him to assume degrading and painful positions, threatened to rape and kill his daughter and his partner and to murder his parents, pretended to execute him with a weapon and caused him to choke. The Committee also takes note of the complainants’ allegations that, once the journey had ended, Mr. Gallardo Martínez was held for approximately 30 hours in a secret detention centre, where he was deprived of water and sleep and prevented from defecating, was again beaten on the testicles, stomach, back, face and head, was choked, was forced to witness acts of torture against other detainees, and was forced to listen as death threats were made against his relatives. In addition, while he was in detention at the premises of the Office of the Assistant Attorney General for the Investigation of Organized Crime, he was given unauthorized injections, and, again, officers threatened to kill his partner, daughter and parents, and he was deprived of water, food and sleep. The complainants claim that this treatment was meted out to force Mr. Gallardo Martínez to confess to an alleged crime, and he signed blank sheets of paper that were subsequently used as alleged evidence of self-incrimination. Lastly, during the five years and seven months he spent in Puente Grande maximum security prison in Guadalajara, he was again beaten on his back, kicked in the buttocks and screamed at in the ear; subjected to body cavity searches (anal); forced to live in overcrowded conditions, placed in solitary confinement, confined to his cell for 22 hours per day and deprived of sleep; and denied adequate and timely surgery. 7.4 The Committee also notes that the State party has argued that the injuries noted by the doctors attached to the Counsel General’s Office could have been sustained during his arrest or if he had gone over on his ankle without, however, providing any further information. The 13 14 12 See, inter alia, A.E. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/14/D/24/1995), para. 4; Evloev v. Kazakhstan (CAT/C/51/D/441/2010), para. 8.6; and Ramírez Martínez et al. v. Mexico (CAT/C/55/D/500/2012), para. 16.4. Third recommendation. GE.22-01556