CAT/C/72/D/992/2020 investigations, that they have no access to official information on the status of one of the preliminary investigations and that an attempt is being made to close the other one (see para. 5.6 above). The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that it is not responsible for violations of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, since the investigation is not an obligation of result, but of means. 7.8 The Committee recalls that article 12 of the Convention requires States parties to ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed.17 The Committee notes that, although Mr. Gallardo Martínez had visible injuries when he was examined by doctors attached to the Counsel General’s Office on 19, 20 and 22 May 2013 (see paras. 2.4, 2.8 and 2.12 above), no immediate investigation was initiated. 7.9 The Committee further recalls that the investigation alone is not sufficient to demonstrate the State party’s fulfilment of its obligations under article 12 of the Convention, if it can be shown not to have been conducted promptly and impartially. It recalls that promptness is essential to ensure that the victim may not continue to be subjected to torture because, in general, the physical traces of torture soon disappear. 18 The Committee notes that, in the present case, the complainants filed formal appeals in respect of the acts of torture, which, more than eight years later, have not led to the advancement of the investigation or to the punishment of those responsible; rather the case is still at the preliminary investigation stage, without any justification for the excessive delay in the investigations having been offered or any timely information on the status of the investigations having been provided to the complainants. The Committee further notes that neither the investigation opened ex officio by the local representation of the Counsel General’s Office in the state of Oaxaca in 2016, nor the two complaints filed by the National Human Rights Commission in 2018 have served to advance the investigations. 7.10 In the light of the above, the Committee concludes that the State party has failed to fulfil its obligations under articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. 7.11 The Committee takes note of the complainants’ claims that the damage caused to Mr. Gallardo Martínez and the members of his family, who are also complainants, has not been repaired. The Committee recalls its general comment No. 3 (2012), which states that immediate family or dependants of the victim19 are also considered to be victims, in the sense that they are entitled to full reparation. The Committee notes that the State party has begun the process of recognizing some of Mr. Gallardo Martínez’s family members as indirect victims (see para. 5.7 above). The Committee also recalls that the general comment mentions the necessary measures of restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and the right to the truth, and stresses the need for States parties to provide the means necessary for as full a rehabilitation as possible for anyone who has suffered harm as a result of a violation of the Convention, which should be holistic and include medical and psychological care as well as legal and social services.20 In view of the lack of a prompt and impartial investigation of the complaints submitted in respect of the acts of torture reported, and all the issues highlighted in the previous paragraphs, the Committee concludes that the State party has failed to comply with its obligations under article 14 of the Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Gallardo Martínez and the other complainants. 7.12 Lastly, the Committee takes note of the complainants’ allegations that article 15 of the Convention was violated because Mr. Gallardo Martínez was forced to sign an alleged confession of involvement in criminal acts for fear that the threats against his family would be carried out. The Committee notes that the alleged confession, together with another statement by a third party, also obtained under torture, were the basis on which the Public Prosecution Service decided to keep Mr. Gallardo Martínez in detention for five years and seven months, before finally closing the case (see para. 5.8 above). Accordingly, the 17 18 19 20 14 Ramírez Martínez et al. v. Mexico, para. 17.7. Ibid., para. 17.8. General comment No. 3 (2012), para. 3. Ibid., paras. 11–15. GE.22-01556