CCPR/C/123/D/2767/2016 3.4 The author submits that her detention was unlawful and arbitrary, in violation of article 9 of the Covenant, since it was based on a restriction of the freedom of expression, contrary to the Covenant. She adds that her detention resulted from an abuse of public office, since the Governor of the State of Puebla ordered her to be criminally investigated and detained using his powers as a senior public official, as was clear from the recordings of the conversations between the Governor and Mr. Nacif that had been made public. The arrest was made by the authorities of the States of Puebla and Quintana Roo, who had no material or territorial jurisdiction to prosecute the alleged acts. Furthermore, the officers who arrested her had not been authorized to do so, since the prosecutor’s office of the State of Puebla requested the cooperation of its counterpart in the State of Quintana Roo and sent it the names of the two arresting officers from the Puebla judicial police six hours after the arrest had been carried out. Lastly, the author states that she was admitted to the Social Rehabilitation Centre in Puebla even though no documents authorizing her admission had been submitted. 3.5 The author adds that the detention order contained no assessment of the constitutionality and proportionality of the custodial measure imposed on her. Furthermore, no evaluation was made of whether there was sufficient evidence to support a claim for the moral damages or discredit caused to the complainant by the publication of the author’s book. The detention order therefore amounted to disproportionate censorship of the author’s investigative journalism. 3.6 The author claims that the conditions of her transfer from the State of Quintana Roo to Puebla and the treatment to which she was subjected during that transfer constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. As a result of these events, the author was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.13 In addition, the conditions of her detention constituted a violation of article 10 of the Covenant. 3.7 The author further claims that she was a victim of gender violence — because she is a woman — during her detention and transfer to the State of Puebla. The fact that she was accompanied by male officers alone put her at risk of sexual assault. Moreover, the officers accompanying her made sexual comments to the effect that if she wanted to eat she had to “behave and perform oral sex on them” or that “she was their little toy and they were going to have a lot of fun”. 3.8 The author submits that the criminal proceedings against her were fraught with violations of the right to due process, as recognized in article 14 (1) of the Covenant, including: (a) the failure to give notice of the opening of a preliminary investigation against her by the prosecution service; (b) the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the criminal court of the State of Puebla; (c) the failure to notify the author of the reasons for her detention; (d) the refusal to allow her to communicate with her lawyer during her detention and transfer to the State of Puebla; (e) the involvement of private individuals close to Mr. Nacif in her arrest; and (f) the imposition of a bail amount disproportionate to the nature of the offences (140,000 Mexican pesos (US$ 7,400), an amount which was later halved). 3.9 The author also submits that the courts that heard the criminal case against her lacked independence and impartiality. The commission of inquiry established by the Supreme Court of Mexico found that there was evidence of a “relationship between Nacif and the judiciary of the State of Puebla”.14 The author claims that there was an agreement between private individuals and executive and judicial authorities of the State of Puebla, including the Governor and the president of the High Court of Justice of that State, to persecute the author and punish her for her journalistic work and to produce a chilling effect on other journalists. 3.10 The author submits that domestic remedies have not been effective in ensuring, within a reasonable time, the investigation and punishment of those responsible for her arbitrary detention and torture and the threats made against her. Eight years after her 13 14 6 The author provides a copy of a medical/psychological expert evaluation dated 29 September 2006 from the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Offences Related to Acts of Violence against Women. The author provides a copy of the transcript of the ordinary public session of the Supreme Court, sitting in plenary, held on Monday, 26 November 2007. GE.18-14178