CAT/C/72/D/992/2020 not endanger Mr. Gallardo Martínez’s life, and that they could have been sustained during his arrest or if he had gone over on his ankle. 4.4 The State party also argues that, since it has not been proved that the crime of torture was committed, it cannot be held responsible for the violation of articles 14 and 15 of the Convention. 4.5 Lastly, the State party argues that it is not responsible for violations of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, stressing that the investigation is not an obligation of result but of means. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 In their comments of 4 April 2021, the complainants note that the State party’s response is criminalization-focused. Despite the criminal proceedings having been closed, in its observations, the State party continues to view the matter from a criminalization standpoint, which has been reflected in its actions since the arbitrary detention took place, and has merely reproduced background information from the criminal case without analysing the serious failings and inconsistencies it discloses. The complainants reiterate that no guarantees were provided at the time of the arrest and that it was precisely the absence of such guarantees, such as the failure to record the detention, that triggered a series of serious human rights violations. 5.2 In particular, the State party continues to claim in its observations that the arrest was carried out in flagrante delicto for the offence of involvement in organized crime, when such an allegation is totally false and implausible, as has already been demonstrated by the exculpatory evidence and, in particular, by the questioning of the arresting police officers, which confirmed that he was not arrested in flagrante delicto for any offence, as had been alleged in the criminal proceedings, but at his home, in his bedroom with his daughter and partner (see para. 2.27 above). 5.3 With regard to the alleged inadmissibility of the complaint for failure to exhaust domestic remedies because Mr. Gallardo Martínez did not initiate amparo proceedings to address the failings of the authorities responsible for the torture investigations, the complainants point out that amparo is an extraordinary remedy and that it need not be exhausted. They also reiterate that the appeals continue to be unreasonably prolonged almost eight years after the events. 5.4 With regard to the violation of articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, the complainants note that the State party simply concludes that the injuries could have been caused by something other than acts of torture, without analysing the series of inconsistencies and shortcomings reported. 5.5 The complainants also note that the State party failed to respond to the alleged violation of article 11 of the Convention, and argue that, in failing to do so, it admitted its responsibility by omission. 5.6 With regard to the violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the complainants allege that the State party has not shown that it has taken reasonable steps to advance the investigation and punish those responsible. They also explain that the authorities have sought to intimidate Florencia Gallardo Martínez every time she has approached them to enquire as to the status of the investigations. They add that they do not have access to official information on the status of preliminary investigation No. 738/UEIDAPLE/DT/8/2014 (see para. 2.21 above) and that they were informed that, on 30 December 2019, the Public Prosecution Service requested a ruling not to prosecute in connection with preliminary investigation No. 045/AP/DGCSPI/14 (see para. 2.19 above), which was subsequently appealed. 5.7 With regard to the violation of article 14 of the Convention, the complainants recall that the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention recognized the acts in Opinion No. 23/2014, as did various special rapporteurs of the United Nations (see para. 2.25 above) and even the National Human Rights Commission (see para. 2.18 above). Furthermore, the complainants indicate that, in September 2020, the Attorney General’s Office reportedly granted Mr. 10 GE.22-01556