CCPR/C/123/D/2767/2016 detention, and notwithstanding the extensive evidence adduced, no significant progress has been made in the investigations against those responsible for acts of torture. Those investigations have been unjustifiably prolonged and ineffective, in violation of article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 3.11 Lastly, the author claims a violation of her right to liberty of movement within Mexico, as recognized in article 12 of the Covenant. 3.12 The author requests the Committee to call on the State party: (a) to conduct a thorough investigation of the author’s arbitrary detention, torture and ill-treatment and of the lack of due process guarantees and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for such acts; and (b) to provide the author with full and appropriate compensation for the harm suffered. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In its observations of 6 July 2016, the State party maintains that the communication is inadmissible because the author has failed to exhaust domestic remedies. First, the State party points out that an application for amparo was the effective and appropriate remedy for addressing the claims brought by the author to the Committee, since amparo is the usual remedy for protecting human rights. Specifically, the author should have lodged an amparo appeal to challenge the constitutionality of the offences of calumny and defamation, which at the time were defined under the criminal legislation of the State of Puebla. 4.2 Second, a number of criminal investigations are under way into the facts described by the author. They include several investigations initiated since 2006 by the Attorney General’s Office into the complaints brought by the author. As part of these investigations, a suspect was arrested and a detention order was issued against him for the offence of torture on 17 December 2014. The criminal proceedings are currently at the pretrial stage. The arrest warrant for the second judicial officer charged has yet to be executed. Regarding the investigations into collusion between individuals and high-level Mexican authorities, the State party points out that preliminary investigations by the Attorney General’s Office have been under way since 2007, but that it has not been possible to bring criminal proceedings on the basis of the evidence currently available. With regard to the author’s complaints of threats, the State party reports that, on 18 May 2007, the prosecution service opened a preliminary investigation into an alleged criminal attack against the author. However, on 8 July 2013, the prosecution service decided against bringing criminal proceedings. On 4 March 2010 and 5 October 2012, the prosecution service opened preliminary investigations into the author’s complaints of threats; the investigations are ongoing. 4.3 The State party further submits that the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. It points out that it is for the Mexican authorities to investigate the alleged facts and to evaluate the facts and evidence, unless it can be shown that there has been arbitrariness or a denial of justice, which is not the situation in the present case. The State party submits that, in addition to the criminal investigation conducted by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, the Supreme Court of Mexico investigated the allegations and that, in the course of that investigation, the author had the opportunity to testify and submit evidence. However, following the completion of the investigation on 29 November 2007, the Court found that it had not been established that the author’s individual guarantees had been seriously violated in the course of the criminal proceedings against her, a matter which the Committee is barred from re-evaluating. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 In her comments of 7 October 2016, the author submits that there has been an unjustified delay in access to justice, since no progress has been made in the investigation of the complaints filed with the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic in March 2006. Criminal proceedings for the offence of torture were not brought against two judicial officials until December 2014, that is, nine years after the initial complaints were lodged and after the communication was submitted to the Committee in October 2014. Regarding the other investigations, they remain open after 10 years, a delay that cannot be justified by GE.18-14178 7