CAT/C/71/D/759/2016 his claim using the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol) and investigating the links between police security forces and the organized criminal gangs operating in the municipality of Taxco. 2.28 The complainant concludes that the circumstances in which the rule of exhaustion of available domestic remedies established in article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention may be considered inapplicable are met: the processing of the domestic remedies has been unreasonably prolonged, in that three years and two months have passed since he made his first complaint, and more than a year has elapsed since he filed his complaint with the Office of the Assistant Attorney General for the Investigation of Organized Crime for a second time, without the judicial authorities having made any progress in the investigation, let alone identified and brought charges against the police officers responsible for the acts of torture and bodily injuries, some of which were serious. 2.29 The complainant also highlights that, under Mexican criminal law, the only domestic remedies that would allow for the investigation of an act of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in his case are the following: either (i) a criminal investigation carried out by the judicial authorities of Guerrero State; or (ii) a criminal investigation carried out by the Office of the Assistant Attorney General for the Investigation of Organized Crime. The complainant filed the corresponding complaints and the competent authorities were made aware of his allegations of torture.6 The complainant maintains that no criminal investigation into the acts of torture committed against him has been carried out and that the judicial authorities have failed to identify and bring proceedings against the police officers involved in the events. Moreover, according to the complainant, it is reasonable to assume that the possible remedies would not provide effective protection, since inaction on the part of the competent authorities makes it unlikely that any remedy attempted would provide effective relief and that the victim’s situation would improve.7 The complaint 3.1 The complainant alleges a violation of article 1, read in conjunction with article 2 (1) of the Convention. He claims that the treatment described, to which he was subjected during his arrest, transfer and detention and throughout the period of his deprivation of his liberty, qualifies as torture within the meaning of article 1 in that the State agents intentionally inflicted severe pain and suffering, both physical and mental, that left him with serious physical and psychological injuries. These injuries caused serious and irreversible damage to the complainant’s health, to the point that, at the present date, he is unable to exercise his skills as a craftsman to the same standard as before because of the injuries to his wrists and joints and he has also been unable to have sexual relations with his wife because of the blows he received in the genital area. The complainant maintains that the intent of the municipal police officers was clear, being to punish and intimidate him for “having messed with them”. 3.2 The complainant submits that the State failed in its obligation to prevent torture by allowing him to be detained without having been caught in flagrante delicto, without an arrest warrant having been issued, without his details having been recorded in the detainee register, without any judicial oversight of his detention and without his being permitted a medical examination and medical treatment. The State party allowed him to be detained without a medical examination and medical treatment and to be held incommunicado, without access to a lawyer and without being examined by independent doctors. He highlights that the first medical examination took place when he was deprived of liberty and was carried out by a doctor from the Municipal Public Security Force, who overlooked his serious injuries, rather than by an independent doctor. 3.3 The complainant alleges a violation of article 16, read in conjunction with article 2 (1) of the Convention, owing to the acts committed by the Taxco police officers when he was arrested, during his transfer and while he was being held at the police headquarters. Should 6 7 6 Evloev v. Kazakhstan (CAT/C/51/D/441/2010), para. 8.5. Ali Ben Salem v. Tunisia (CAT/C/39/D/269/2005), para. 8.5; Slyusar v. Ukraine (CAT/C/47/D/353/2008) para. 8.2; and Déogratias Niyonzima v. Burundi (CAT/C/53/D/514/2012), para. 7.2. GE.21-13347