CAT/C/72/D/992/2020 Committee notes, however, that a medical and psychological opinion based on the Istanbul Protocol concluded that Mr. Gallardo Martínez had been subjected to acts of torture intended to “bend the will to the extreme” and “convince of the aggressors’ capacity to inflict pain and death” (see para. 2.14 above), and that doctors from the Executive Commission for Victim Support diagnosed him with anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, sequelae of the injury to his left shoulder and right ankle, and noted that he experienced pain upon moving his right foot (see paras. 2.15 and 2.16 above). The Committee considers that the facts described by the complainants regarding the conditions in which Mr. Gallardo Martínez was arrested and subsequently detained, and the circumstances in which he was held during his time in detention constitute acts of torture under article 1 of the Convention. 7.5 The complainants allege a violation of article 2 of the Convention because the State party failed in its obligation to prevent the acts of torture described during his arrest and subsequent periods in detention. The Committee notes that Mr. Gallardo Martínez was detained by police officers without an arrest warrant and without being in flagrante delicto, and that he was unable to communicate with his partner for almost two days and with an independent lawyer for four days. During this time, he was interrogated under torture by the officers and forced to sign confessions, and an official from the Public Prosecution Service only came to sign a ministerial statement that Mr. Gallardo Martínez had made under torture. The Committee also notes that, despite the injuries noted during the medical examinations, and despite appeals having been filed against the detention orders issued against him, the authorities decided to keep him in detention on the basis of his alleged confession, simply ordering that a new decision be issued to remedy the procedural irregularities in question (see para. 2.20 above). The Committee recalls its concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Mexico, in which it urged the State party to take effective measures to ensure that detainees enjoy the benefits of all fundamental safeguards in practice, from the outset of their deprivation of liberty, in line with international standards, including, in particular: the right to receive legal assistance without delay; the right to obtain immediate access to an independent doctor; the right to be informed of the reasons for their detention; the right to have their detention recorded in a register; the right to inform a family member of their detention without delay and the right to be brought before a judge without delay.15 In the light of the above circumstances and the lack of information provided by the State party about these events, the Committee considers that the State party has failed to fulfil its obligation to take effective measures to prevent acts of torture as set out in article 2 (1) of the Convention. 7.6 The Committee also notes the complainants’ argument that article 11 of the Convention was violated because of the State party’s failure to put in place mechanisms to assess compliance with existing laws and regulations, which paved the way for serious irregularities in the recording of the detention and the lack of access to a lawyer and to an independent doctor. The Committee notes that the State party did not respond to this allegation. The Committee recalls its concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Mexico, in which it urged the State party to ensure the systematic review of interrogation and arrest procedures, in accordance with article 11 of the Convention. 16 For these reasons, the Committee concludes that the State party has violated article 11 of the Convention. 7.7 With regard to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee takes note of the complainants’ allegations that the competent authorities failed to carry out a prompt, immediate and thorough investigation into the acts of torture, despite the complainants’ having sought various judicial remedies since 2013, an investigation having been initiated ex officio by the local representation of the Counsel General’s Office in the state of Oaxaca in 2016, and despite recommendation 5/2018 of the National Human Rights Commission and the complaints submitted by the Commission in 2018 to the internal affairs unit of the federal police and the Specialized Unit for the Investigation of Crimes Committed by Public Servants against the Administration of Justice of the Counsel General’s Office. The complainants also allege that, not only has the State party failed to show that it has taken reasonable steps to advance the investigation and to punish those responsible, but that the authorities have sought to intimidate them each time they have approached them to enquire as to the status of the 15 16 GE.22-01556 CAT/C/MEX/CO/7, para. 15. Ibid., para. 17. 13