CCPR/C/123/D/2767/2016 7.2 The author claims that, when regulating the right to freedom of expression and the limitations imposed on the right to privacy and honour of persons, the State should not resort to such onerous measures as the application of criminal law, let alone custodial sentences. The author points out that, at the time of the events, the State of Puebla criminalized defamation and calumny and that it was on that legal basis that the detention order was issued against her, which violated her rights to personal freedom and freedom of expression. 7.3 Regarding the general measures taken by the State party, the author submits that the establishment of the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Offences Committed against the Freedom of Expression has had no impact on efforts to reduce the widespread impunity for offences against journalists, as indicated by the Office in its 2016 report, according to which the level of impunity for these offences is 99.75 per cent. 19 For its part, the Mechanism for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders and Journalists has been severely criticized by Mexican civil society and international organizations because of the ineffectiveness of the protection measures granted by it. 20 7.4 The author stresses that, although she was released shortly after her arrest, it was only on payment of bail of US$ 3,700. 7.5 The author maintains that the rulings of the commission of inquiry established by the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico are not binding and they had been arrived at on political grounds rather than on the basis of criminal law. The commission had ruled that the telephone-tapping evidence could not be taken into account without also taking into account other evidence, including the public statements made by Mr. Nacif himself (see para. 2.9). Additional information from the State party 8. In a note dated 18 June 2018, the State party indicated that, on 17 October 2017, the Second District Criminal Court of the State of Quintana Roo had convicted one of the two judicial officers on charges of torture and imposed a sentence of imprisonment for 5 years and 3 months, together with a fine, dismissal from his post and ineligibility for public functions for the duration indicated in the sentence. That decision was upheld at appeal by the District Court of the Sixth Region of Chihuahua on 13 March 2018. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 9.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the author failed to exhaust domestic remedies owing to the fact that she did not file an application for amparo to challenge the constitutionality of the criminal provisions of the State of Puebla establishing the offences of defamation and calumny and that there are several ongoing criminal investigations into the violations alleged by the author to have taken place during her detention and following her release. 9.3 However, the Committee notes the statements by the author — which the State party has not refuted — that the filing of an amparo application in respect of the constitutionality of the provisions establishing the offences of defamation and calumny would have been ineffective, since it would have resulted in the suspension of the criminal proceedings against her, in accordance with the Amparo Act in force at that time, thereby unnecessarily prolonging the proceedings and the risk of her suffering further attacks during her pretrial detention. The author has also submitted that it was not possible for her to file for amparo 19 20 10 Statistical Report of the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Offences Committed against the Freedom of Expression, August 2016. The author cites, among other sources, the 2016 report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights. GE.18-14178