CAT/C/71/D/759/2016 complaint of torture and that it is enough for the victim simply to bring the facts to the attention of a State authority for the latter to have an obligation to consider it.16 5.8 The complainant also wishes to clarify that when the State party refers to the offence of damage, the damage in question is damage to his wife’s vehicle, and not damage to herself or to the complainant. The complainant therefore contends that the State party’s assertion that “the authorities have achieved substantial progress” is not accurate, as none of the actions taken were for the offence of torture and the only person arrested was arrested for the offence of damaging a vehicle. Thus, even when the complainant tried to exhaust available remedies, the decision of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Taxco not to investigate the offence of torture against the complainant made the attempt an ineffective remedy. 5.9 For these reasons, the complainant filed a complaint with the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic. However, the official of the Federal Prosecution Service decided not to open a preliminary investigation (see paragraph 2.26 above), which meant that he considered no crime to have been committed against the complainant. Although the complainant made several written submissions requesting that a preliminary investigation be initiated, the Federal Prosecution Service official responded that this was not necessary since preliminary investigation ALA/SC/05/0328/2013 was still under way in Taxco. In other words, the Federal Prosecution Service official considered that the investigation should focus on bodily injury and not the offence of torture. 5.10 Against this decision, the complainant filed an application for indirect amparo, which was admitted by the Eleventh District Court for Amparo in Criminal Matters (see paragraph 2.27 above). However, to date, no action has been taken to investigate the officers of the Taxco municipal police for the torture allegations made by the complainant nor has the Istanbul Protocol been applied. The complainant has been summoned twice by the Federal Prosecution Service official, the first time seven months after the court decision, in order to apply the Istanbul Protocol, but on that occasion the procedures could not be carried out because of failings on the part of the prosecutor which meant that the experts were not informed that the complainant would be appearing, and the second time two months later, but on that occasion the expert psychologist did not turn up, making a third hearing necessary. The complainant maintains that, to date, there have been no further attempts to establish the facts of the acts of torture or the involvement of the police officers. 5.11 The complainant considers that, for these reasons, the two grounds for non-application of the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies established in the Convention and highlighted by the Committee are met, namely, that the proceedings are unreasonably prolonged and that they are unlikely to bring effective relief. 5.12 The complainant expresses his considerable surprise that the State party has erroneously indicated that he failed to report the fact that he had been threatened by municipal police officers to any authority. The complainant made complaints and filed formal grievances about the death threats he has received with the following authorities: (i) Guerrero State Human Rights Commission, on 1 May 2013, 6 February 2014 and 14 May 2015; (ii) the mayor of Taxco, on 6 May 2013; (iii) the municipal ombudsman of Taxco, on 6 May 2013; (iv) the Federal Prosecution Service official within the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, on 23 October 2014 and 20 April 2015; and (v) the Chair of the Executive Commission for Victim Support, on 15 March 2015. The complainant therefore reiterates that, since 1 May 2013, the State has been fully aware of the death threats he had been receiving. 5.13 With regard to the proceedings before Guerrero State Human rights Commission, the complainant wishes to point out that the Commission is not a judicial body and that its recommendations are not binding, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Committee, which has stated that investigations carried out by the Commission would not, due to the very nature of its recommendations, constitute an effective and enforceable remedy in terms of the exhaustion of domestic remedies.17 16 17 10 Ltaief v. Tunisia (CAT/C/31/D/189/2001), para. 10.6. Ramírez Martínez et al. v. Mexico (CAT/C/55/D/500/2012), para. 16.5. GE.21-13347