CAT/C/71/D/759/2016 and within Guerrero State Human Rights Commission, some of which are still under way. The Committee notes, however, that the complainant has indicated that these procedures are ineffective because they are unreasonably prolonged, and are deficient in that, in the case of the Human Rights Commission, its recommendations are not binding; and that, in any case, only the offences of injury to the complainant and damage to a vehicle have been investigated and no investigation into offences of torture has ever been initiated. 9.4 The Committee recalls that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply if the processing of such remedies has been or could be unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief.24 In the present case, the Committee notes that more than three years have elapsed since the first complaint in which the complainant requested that the acts of torture be investigated by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic. The Committee notes that the acts of torture have not been investigated by either Taxco City Council or the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, despite the decision taken on 1 July 2016 by the Eleventh District Court for Amparo in Criminal Matters ordering the Office of the Assistant Attorney General for the Investigation of Organized Crime, attached to the Attorney General’s Office, to investigate. Although a criminal investigation was opened by the Attorney General’s Office on 27 October 2016, with an arrest warrant being issued for three officers of the municipal police, the Committee notes that the offences being investigated related to bodily injury to the complainant and damage to a vehicle. The Committee also notes that, despite the investigations and criminal proceedings that it has initiated, the State party has not undertaken an investigation into acts of torture reported by the complainant, and has offered no explanation or reasonable arguments concerning the reasons that led it to investigate only the acts of bodily injury and damage and not the acts of torture, particularly in the light of the limited and questionable procedures undertaken and the very rare convictions for torture in the State party.25 The Committee also recalls that the investigations conducted by Guerrero State Human Rights Commission, which is a statelevel human rights 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.26 9.5 Under these circumstances, the Committee considers that domestic remedies have been unreasonably prolonged and would be ineffective. Accordingly, the requirements of article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention do not preclude the Committee from examining the communication on the merits. 9.6 Accordingly, the Committee finds that the complainant’s allegations under article 2 (1), in conjunction with articles 1 and 16, and under articles 11 to 14 of the Convention are admissible. Consideration of the merits 10.1 The Committee has examined the complaint in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 10.2 Before proceeding to examine the complainant’s allegations as they relate to the articles of the Convention which he has invoked, the Committee must determine whether the acts to which the complainant was subjected constitute acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 10.3 The Committee notes the complainant’s allegations that during his arrest, detention and imprisonment, he was repeatedly beaten with weapons, fists and boots, stamped upon in the genital area and ribs, had guns pointed at him and was threatened with death and disappearance by police officers. The Committee also notes that the complainant has provided a number of medical reports that confirm the existence of bodily injuries including a broken rib, erectile dysfunction, symptoms of post-traumatic stress and a loss of muscle 24 25 26 GE.21-13347 See, inter alia, the Committee’s decisions on admissibility in communications A.E. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/14/D/24/1995) para. 4; Evloev v. Kazakhstan, para. 8.6; and Ramírez Martínez et al. v. Mexico, para. 16.4. Ramírez Martínez et al. v. Mexico, para. 16.5. Ibid. 13