CAT/C/72/D/992/2020 between Mr. Gallardo Martínez and the family of the kidnapped children. Furthermore, on 13 March 2015, the First Collegiate Court of the Third Circuit of the state of Jalisco, in a decision handed down in connection with indirect amparo application No. 48/2014, ordered the exclusion from the evidence of the ministerial statement by a third party incriminating Mr. Gallardo Martínez, on the grounds that it had been obtained under torture. Moreover, on 14 July 2015, while the arresting police officers were being questioned, it was confirmed that he had not been arrested in flagrante delicto, as claimed during the criminal proceedings, but at his home, in his bedroom with his daughter and partner. Likewise, on 28 July 2016, municipal authorities and two members of the community gave statements confirming that, on 14 January 2013, the date of the kidnapping of the children of which he was accused, Mr. Gallardo Martínez was out working in different communities in Oaxaca. Lastly, on 21 June 2017 and 3 January 2018, on-site investigations confirmed that the address at which the police officers had supposedly arrested him in flagrante delicto does not exist. 2.28 After his having spent five years and seven months in prison on account of criminal proceedings that never progressed beyond the investigation stage, the Public Prosecution Service requested that the case be dismissed, and Mr. Gallardo Martínez was subsequently acquitted and released. Complaint 3.1 The complainants claim that the complaint has not been submitted to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement, as the procedure before the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention does not have the same binding character as those initiated before the treaty bodies and the scope of its recommendations is more limited than the present complaint. 3.2 The complainants also claim that the conditions are met for an exception to be made to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, given the unreasonable prolongation of the torture investigations. 3.3 The complainants claim a violation of Mr. Gallardo Martínez’s rights under articles 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Convention, and of their rights collectively under article 14 of the Convention. 3.4 With regard to the alleged violation of article 1 of the Convention, the complainants recall that, after having been taken away by force, Mr. Gallardo Martínez was subjected to a litany of abuses intended to cause him physical and emotional pain, including beatings and threats of rape and death against his relatives, and to obtain from him an alleged confession for crimes with which he was subsequently charged. Thereafter, he continued to suffer illtreatment and was kept in solitary confinement and incommunicado detention. They also recall that, according to the medical and psychological report, the torture was intended to “bend the will to the extreme, isolate, cause psychological terror, continually inflict physical pain, weaken body and psyche and cause emotional pain, trigger panic, convince of the aggressors’ capacity to inflict pain and death” (see para. 2.14 above). 3.5 The complainants allege that the torture and ill-treatment to which Mr. Gallardo Martínez was subjected at the time of his arrest, in the secret detention centre, at the Office of the Assistant Attorney General for the Investigation of Organized Crime and, subsequently, in prison, have had irreversible consequences. In physical terms, the delay in treating his eye condition has caused permanent damage to his sight, which persists to this day. The sequelae of the blows to his left forearm and right foot are still visible. In addition, he has not received specialized psychological care, despite the recommendation made in the medical opinion; he was only able to begin receiving private specialized care following his release. 3.6 The complainants also allege a violation of article 2 of the Convention because the State party failed to take appropriate measures to prevent the acts of torture and ill-treatment from occurring. Irregularities occurred from the beginning of the arrest process: no charges were brought and only an order to locate and hand over the person had been issued; however, an arrest warrant had not been served and the conditions of flagrante delicto or urgency had not been met, these being the only three sets of circumstances in which an arrest may be considered legal. The complainants recall that the Committee has expressed concern about 6 GE.22-01556