CAT/C/72/D/992/2020 the use of arbitrary detention in Mexico, insofar as it is conducive to the practice of torture. 7 They also recall that the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment stated, in relation to his mission to Mexico in 2014, that “safeguards are weak, especially those for detecting and preventing torture in these first moments. Detention records and medical examinations are often inadequate and do not mention allegations or evidence of torture; there is inadequate monitoring of the legality of detention or the deadline for bringing detainees before the Public Prosecution Service; detainees are not given immediate access to an adequate defence; detainees’ statements are given without judicial oversight or the presence of a lawyer”. 3.7 The complainants also allege a violation of article 11 of the Convention because, although the State party had an obligation to ensure compliance with existing laws and regulations by means of permanent assessment mechanisms, these mechanisms failed, as evidenced by the serious irregularities in the detention records and the lack of access to a lawyer and an independent doctor. 3.8 The complainants also claim a violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. From the time of Mr. Gallardo Martínez’s arbitrary detention until his release, various judicial remedies have been sought in view of the torture that he suffered, without the investigation having progressed. Furthermore, in 2016, the local representation of the Counsel General’s Office in the state of Oaxaca initiated an investigation ex officio, claiming to have learned of the facts in press releases, again without any progress having been made. Lastly, in 2018, the National Human Rights Commission filed a complaint with the internal affairs unit of the federal police and with the Specialized Unit for the Investigation of Crimes Committed by Public Servants against the Administration of Justice of the Counsel General’s Office, respectively. No progress has been made in relation to either complaint. The complainants recall that, in the past, the Committee considered the failure to conduct an investigation for 15 months to amount to a violation of article 12 of the Convention, 8 whereas, in the present case, no investigation has been carried out for more than six years. They thus conclude that a prompt, immediate and thorough investigation into the acts of torture did not take place. 3.9 The complainants further allege a violation of article 14 of the Convention, not only to the detriment of Mr. Gallardo Martínez, but to that of all the complainants listed in the complaint. The complainants recall that the “immediate family or dependants of the victim” are also considered to be victims, in the sense that they are entitled to full reparation.9 3.10 The complainants submit that, although Mr. Gallardo Martínez is the direct victim of the alleged acts, all the other complainants are indirect victims. The detention of Mr. Gallardo Martínez has, in reality, affected Yolanda Barranco Hernández, his partner, physically and psychologically and has disrupted her life plan. In the early hours of the morning, hooded individuals forced their way into her home, breaking down the door, while she was asleep with her partner and her 9-year-old daughter. In addition to the trauma this caused her, she has been targeted for demanding justice (she took part in marches, protests, forums, meetings and other reporting activities, at home and abroad). Her salary was also withheld, which entailed a loss of income, and she has been subjected to persecution, intimidation, defamation and constant monitoring. This led her to request protection measures through the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman of Oaxaca,10 and to change how she travelled, as she was no longer safe on public transport, opting instead to take taxis or to arrange private transport. Whereas before she was in perfect health, she developed various disorders involving a strong emotional element (nervous colitis, gastritis, gynaecological disorders, allergies and anxiety). In addition, she had to move three times due to societal pressure in her neighbourhood and at work. Although she was able to visit her partner in prison, she suffered humiliating treatment 7 8 9 10 GE.22-01556 See CAT/C/MEX/CO/5-6. Halimi-Nedzibi v. Austria (CAT/C/11/D/8/1991), para. 13.5. The complainants also refer to Sonko v. Spain (CAT/C/47/D/368/2008), para. 10.7; Osmani v. Republic of Serbia (CAT/C/42/D/261/2005), para. 10.7; Blanco Abad v. Spain (CAT/C/20/D/59/1996), para. 8.8; and Dimitrov v. Serbia and Montenegro (CAT/C/34/D/171/2000), para. 7.2. General comment No. 3 (2012), para. 3. Case file No. DDHPO/CA/1389/30/OAX/2014. 7