CAT/C/71/D/759/2016 and, for this reason, the complainant reiterates the comments he made in his submission of 28 March 2017 concerning the admissibility of the communication. 8.2 As to the declaration of inadmissibility requested by the State party because domestic proceedings are under way, the complainant wishes to recall that these proceedings concern offences of injury to the complainant and damage to his wife’s vehicle. Therefore, there are no domestic proceedings under way in which the offences of torture reported by the complainant are being investigated, and, accordingly, domestic remedies have proved ineffective. 8.3 The complainant also notes that in preliminary investigation FED/SEIDO/UEIDMSGRO/00005467206, initiated in the Specialized Unit for the Investigation of Crimes related to Kidnapping of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic on 12 September 2016, in response to the order issued by the Eleventh District Court for Amparo in Criminal Matters (see paragraph 2.27 above), the Federal Prosecution Service official decided not to investigate the acts of torture and declined jurisdiction in favour of the Attorney General’s Office of Guerrero State, which has also failed to investigate the acts of torture. Accordingly, the complainant reiterates that in its submission the State party has not disputed the violations of article 1 of the Convention, read in conjunction with article 2 (1), and of article 11. 8.4 With regard to article 16, read in conjunction with article 2 (1) of the Convention, the complainant wishes to add that the State party did not take the steps necessary to ensure that the conditions of his detention conformed to the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners,22 as the complainant did not enjoy such conditions, as detailed in his initial submission. 8.5 With regard to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the complainant wishes to reiterate that no investigation was initiated or is being conducted for the offence of torture; that the police officers that are the subject of the current investigation are being investigated for the offence of bodily injury; and that the only person who has been arrested was arrested from having damaged his wife’s vehicle. Notwithstanding the State party’s comments, the official of the Taxco Public Prosecutor’s Office took down a statement of injury on the same day that the complainant filed his complaint detailing acts of torture, yet despite this the Office did not open an investigation for torture. 8.6 Therefore, in accordance with the Committee’s jurisprudence, the State party is alleged to have violated article 12 and, as a corollary, article 13 of the Convention.23 8.7 With regard to article 14 of the Convention, the complainant wishes to add that the compensation offered by Taxco City Council does not meet the requirements of that article in that it does not provide adequate, effective and comprehensive reparation for the injuries he suffered as a result of the acts reported. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 9.2 The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 9.3 The Committee notes the State party’s allegations that domestic remedies have not been exhausted and that criminal proceedings have been initiated against the police officers but the complainant has not taken part and could have filed an appeal against them. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that various procedures have been carried out in the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, within Taxco City Council 22 23 12 Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution 43/173. Jaïdane v. Tunisia (CAT/C/61/D/654/2015) para. 7.11. GE.21-13347