CCPR/C/123/D/2767/2016 relief against her detention before the detention took place, as required under domestic legislation, since she had not been notified of any investigation against her. 9.4 Regarding the ongoing criminal investigations into the author’s complaints of, among other things, torture, abuse of authority and collusion, the Committee notes that the criminal investigations into torture reopened against two officers following the submission of the present communication resulted in the conviction of a single officer 12 years after the events occurred, a decision that was upheld at appeal; that another arrest warrant is still valid; that the investigations for abuse of authority and collusion were closed without any criminal proceedings being initiated; and that the investigations into the threats and intimidation to which the author had been subjected following her release have made no progress since 2007, have not led to any criminal proceedings being filed and have therefore been excessively lengthy. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any information in the file to suggest that there are any other pending criminal proceedings in relation to the author’s complaints, the Committee considers that the domestic remedies available have been exhausted. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee finds that article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol is not an obstacle to the admissibility of the present communication. 9.5 The Committee notes that the author has not provided any information to justify the alleged violation of article 12 of the Covenant and therefore declares that this part of the communication is insufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, and finds it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 9.6 The Committee takes note of the author’s claims under article 15 (1) of the Covenant, in the sense that while the offences of defamation and calumny are no longer criminal offences in a number of Mexican states, they are still offences in various other Mexican states and may have extraterritorial application, as in the case of the author, and such a situation impedes legal certainty. The Committee is of the view, however, that the coexistence of different criminal statutes in a federal State does not in itself violate the Covenant. In the absence of any information in the file to show that the acts attributed to the author did not constitute at the time of their commission offences under the law in force at the time, and without making any determination as to what law should be applied in the author’s case, the Committee considers that the complaint based on article 15 (1) has not been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and therefore declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 9.7 The Committee also notes the author’s claims under article 14 (1) of the Covenant relating to the lack of independence and impartiality of the national courts that considered the criminal case against her. However, in the absence of further information or evidence in support of this claim, the Committee considers that the latter has not been sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 9.8 However, the Committee finds that the author’s claims under articles 2 (3), 3, 7, 9, 10 and 19 of the Covenant relating to the treatment received during her arrest and detention, the lack of effective remedies to challenge such treatment and the restriction of her right to freedom of expression have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility, declares them admissible and proceeds with their examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 10.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations, which the State party has not challenged, concerning the treatment to which she was subjected during her transfer to the State of Puebla, including the repeated sexual assaults described by her, the death threats, the refusal to let her use the bathroom, sleep, eat or take the medication needed to treat her medical condition, and the sexual assaults against her during her detention on the premises of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Puebla. The Committee considers that the treatment described constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. GE.18-14178 11