CAT/C/71/D/759/2016 the Committee take the view that these acts do not constitute acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention, the complainant considers that they do constitute acts which qualify as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. His treatment was also not respectful of his dignity, as he was denied medical care, water and toilet paper. 3.4 The complainant claims that the State party violated article 11 of the Convention, since, while he was being detained at the police headquarters, the authorities applied neither the Istanbul Protocol nor any other manual that conforms to international standards for the prevention, identification and documentation of torture and, as at the date of the communication, none of the public prosecution service officials who took receipt of the various complaints filed by the complainant have ordered their application either. This omission allowed the torture and ill-treatment to take place and made it easy for the police officers responsible to cover up their acts. 3.5 The complainant claims that the State party violated articles 12 and 13 of the Convention by failing to ensure that the competent authorities initiated a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation of the alleged acts and failing to allow him to have his complaint promptly and impartially examined by the competent authorities. Furthermore, three years and two months after the events, there is no official account of the nature and the circumstances of the acts committed by the police officers, none of the police officers involved in the acts of torture have been linked to the criminal investigation and, consequently, none of them have been brought to trial or punished with penalties commensurate with the seriousness of the acts. 3.6 The complainant emphasizes that, although he reported the torture to which he had been subjected first to the State Prosecutor’s Office and then to the Office of the Assistant Attorney General for the Investigation of Organized Crime, providing a detailed description of the acts of torture and the circumstances in which they took place, a prompt and impartial investigation was never initiated and an independent medical examination was not ordered, all in violation of article 12 of the Convention. In addition, the Office of the Assistant Attorney General for the Investigation of Organized Crime, besides confusing the events reported by the complainant with events related to another investigation, initially merely drew up a report and later declared that it was not competent to deal with the case. Although the complainant was able to submit an application for amparo in order to have an investigation of the acts of torture initiated, which was admitted by the court, as at the date of the communication he has received no information about the action being taken by the State Prosecutor’s Office to comply with that decision. 3.7 The complainant alleges a violation of article 14 of the Convention in that he was deprived of a prompt, effective and impartial judicial remedy that might establish the facts, allow for the prosecution and punishment of those responsible for the acts of torture and enable him to obtain due compensation and rehabilitation. Despite a recommendation that the amount due by way of reparation should be quantified and paid, in the end, two years later, Taxco City Council has merely offered, by way of compensation, an amount of 14,608 pesos, which does not reflect the multiple dimensions of the injuries suffered by the complainant. 3.8 By way of reparation, the complainant requests that the State party guarantees a prompt, impartial and thorough investigation of the events; prosecutes and punishes those responsible with sentences commensurate with the seriousness of the acts. He also requests that he receive fair and adequate reparation that guarantees adequate compensation and rehabilitation, including medical and psychological care. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 24 January 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication and requested that the Committee consider the admissibility separately from the merits of the communication, in keeping with rule 115 (3) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 4.2 The State party maintains that the present communication is inadmissible owing to a failure to exhaust available domestic remedies, pursuant to article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention and rule 113 (e) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. The State party refers to GE.21-13347 7