A/HRC/28/68/Add.3 33. A similar level of impunity exists at state level. In the Federal District, it was reported that 388 preliminary investigations into allegations of torture have been launched since 2008, with criminal proceedings brought in only 2 cases and 121 cases still being processed. There have been only three convictions since 2005 and the penalties imposed on the 12 persons found guilty in these cases are not commensurate with the seriousness of the crime. The Federal District Human Rights Commission, however, reported 386 complaints of torture and issued 12 recommendations between 2011 and February 2014. In Nuevo León, there has been no conviction for torture, yet the State Human Rights Commission received 293 complaints and issued 67 recommendations on cases of torture and illtreatment between 2012 and early 2014. In Chiapas, of the four verdicts reached in cases of torture between 2007 and 2013, all were acquittals. 34. There are structural flaws at both federal and state level that accentuate this impunity. Public prosecution services are reluctant to investigate complaints. Although these services are usually victims’ first point of contact with the justice system, they tend to dismiss victims’ complaints as a ploy to have charges against the detainee dropped. Victims often have to report torture to the same body that they are accusing of committing or permitting it. There is also a tendency on the part of public prosecution services, judges and human rights commissions to classify conducts constituting torture as less serious offences, such as abuse of authority, causing bodily harm or injuries or misconduct in public office. 35. The Special Rapporteur was informed of cases where judges had failed to order the public prosecution service to launch an investigation after receiving complaints from the victim. Where investigations were ordered, they were slow and were not followed up properly, becoming a mere formality. On a positive note, the Supreme Court has issued rulings recently that emphasize judges’ obligation automatically to order an investigation in cases of possible torture7 and a protocol has been adopted directing the conduct of justice officials in such cases.8 The Special Rapporteur encourages all the country’s judicial bodies to follow this practice. Istanbul Protocol 36. The Istanbul Protocol is a fundamental tool for guiding investigations of torture and ill-treatment. Its implementation in Mexico is based mainly on a procedure established in Agreement No. A/057/2003 of the Attorney General’s Office, which regulates how the expert services attached to the Attorney General’s Office are to proceed in drawing up the medical and psychological opinion for cases of possible torture or ill-treatment. By the end of 2013, the Attorney General’s Office had 162 doctors and 49 psychologists trained to implement the Agreement. 37. In general, public prosecution services are also responsible for implementing the Protocol at state level. One positive development is that, at the 2013 National Conference of Attorneys General, all the attorney general’s offices pledged to implement the Protocol and at least 16 have drawn up their procedures in accordance with Agreement No. A/057/2003. Many state attorney general’s offices do not have trained medical staff, however, and often ask the Attorney General’s Office for assistance, thereby adding to the delay in conducting medical examinations. 38. The human rights commissions are also competent to conduct examinations in accordance with the Protocol. The allocation of resources among the different commissions is uneven, however. While the Federal District Human Rights Commission has professional 7 8 GE.14-25288 Supreme Court of Justice, Amparo en Revisión (Amparo Review) No. 703/2012, para. 168. Supreme Court of Justice, Protocol directing the conduct of justice officials in matters involving acts constituting torture and ill-treatment. 9