CCPR/C/123/D/2767/2016 between the Governor of the State of Puebla and Mr. Nacif 7 were transcribed in the press and aired on radio and television, in which Nacif thanked the Governor for his efforts to arrest the author.8 In subsequent public statements to the press, Mr. Nacif confirmed that he had asked the Governor of Puebla to intervene in the author’s arrest and praised the Governor’s “decisive action” and “firm hand”, adding that he had wanted to “teach the author a lesson”. 2.10 On 22 February 2006, the Congress of the Union requested the Supreme Court to exercise its power to investigate the facts relating to the author’s detention and prosecution on the grounds that they might constitute “serious violations of individual guarantees”.9 On 29 November 2007, by a vote of 6 to 4, the Supreme Court concluded that the author’s individual guarantees had not been seriously violated. Criminal proceedings initiated by the author in respect of her detention and torture 2.11 On 13 March 2006, the author filed complaints with the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic concerning the offences of torture, attempted rape, arbitrary detention, intimidation and abuse of authority against two judicial officers of Puebla, and complaints concerning bribery, influence peddling, offences against the administration of justice and the offence of collusion among public servants against the Governor of Puebla, the Attorney General of the State of Puebla and the presiding judge of the Fifth Criminal Court of the State of Puebla, and all those who might be found responsible. The author’s complaints led to the opening of two preliminary investigations by special prosecutors of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic; the investigation was subsequently referred to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Offences Committed against Journalists. 2.12 On 30 January 2008, the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Offences Committed against Journalists brought criminal proceedings before the Second Criminal Court of First Instance of the Judicial District of Cancún (State of Quintana Roo) in respect of the two State of Puebla judicial police officers alone, as probable perpetrators of the offence of torture. On 6 May 2008, the Second Criminal Court dismissed the criminal proceedings against the two defendants; the decision was confirmed on appeal by a decision of 8 January 2009 of the High Court of Justice of the State of Quintana Roo. Regarding the responsibility of the other persons against whom complaints were made, the Office of the Special Prosecutor decided on 16 June 2008 not to bring criminal proceedings. 2.13 In 2009, the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic launched new preliminary investigations against “those responsible” for the offences of abuse of public office and abuse of authority, in accordance with recommendation 16/2009 of the National Human Rights Commission. 10 However, these preliminary investigations were concluded without criminal charges being filed. 2.14 On 18 June 2009, the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Quintana Roo opened a preliminary investigation against a third judicial officer, of that State. The investigation was closed on 18 October 2011 on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to launch a criminal prosecution; the author was not informed of the decision. 7 8 9 10 4 Attorney General replied that what the author was doing was “pressuring the authorities, which is typical of people like her”. In an open letter to the public, dated 6 April 2011, Mr. Nacif acknowledged the authenticity of the recordings. The conversation contained derogatory language and insults used by the Governor to refer to the author, including the following: “Well, I sure gave that old bitch her [expletive] comeuppance yesterday. I told her that in Puebla the law is respected and anyone who commits a crime is called a criminal.” A power provided for under article 97 (2) of the Constitution of the United Mexican States (the provision has been repealed). The National Human Rights Commission — the national human rights institution of Mexico — received a complaint in December 2005 regarding the author’s arbitrary detention, incommunicado detention, torture and cruel and inhuman treatment. In recommendation 16/2009, of 6 March 2009, the Commission concluded that the author had been subjected to acts of torture, but it held only two Puebla State judicial police officers responsible. GE.18-14178