CAT/C/65/D/778/2016 legislation of the Province of Santa Fe establishes a procedure for the closure of cases that can be reviewed only following specific requests to that effect by private criminal plaintiffs, which means that the investigation conducted by the State party’s provincial judicial authorities may be closed without further action. 6.4 In the same vein, the Committee notes that the available information does not show that there has been any communication between the provincial authorities and the legal aid centres aimed at resolving the problems relating to the legal standing and the legal representation of the complainants with a view to enabling them to take part in the proceedings before the provincial courts. The Committee also notes that more than five years have passed since the complainants submitted their first request to join the proceedings as plaintiffs, in February 2013, and that after such a long period the impairment of the right to have effective access to justice and to know the truth about what happened becomes irreversible. The State party has failed to provide a satisfactory resolution of the matter, either by allowing the complainants to join the proceedings as plaintiffs or by recognizing their rights as victims. Furthermore, the State party has failed to provide convincing arguments to justify the delay in responding to the complainants’ request to play an effective part in the criminal investigation. As a result of the complainants’ inability to act as private criminal plaintiffs and to take part in the judicial and investigative proceedings relating to their brother’s case and to give effect to the available domestic remedies, the case entitled Yrusta, Roberto Agustín re/his death (case file No. 356/14) was closed by a decision, dated 20 October 2017, of the Seventh Bench of the Criminal Investigation Court. Furthermore, according to the information provided to the Committee, the provincial prosecutor filed an appeal against the above-mentioned decision to close the case, on the grounds that the present complainants’ application had not been given serious consideration. Indeed, according to the appeal, the present complainants’ statements appear only on pages 72 and 73 of the case file and their specific requests for investigative measures were not examined. The Committee considers that the investigation into the causes of Mr. Yrusta’s death has been unduly prolonged, casting doubt on the effectiveness of the domestic judicial remedies available to the complainants. 6.5 The Committee therefore considers that the domestic remedies in respect of the complainants’ request to be granted standing as parties to the prosecution have been unreasonably prolonged and that no other remedies have been available to them. In view of the foregoing, the Committee concludes that the requirement regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies is not an obstacle to the admissibility of the complainants’ allegations in the present case, owing to the excessive delay and the lack of access to certain domestic remedies. 6.6 The Committee takes note of the complainants’ allegations concerning the absence of a prompt and impartial investigation into the torture and ill-treatment allegedly suffered by Mr. Yrusta prior to his death and the lack of access to the truth about what happened in his case. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s arguments that it would be premature for the Committee to reach a conclusion while an investigation is still ongoing into the causes of Mr. Yrusta’s death, since, until such time as the State party’s courts have issued a decision, it is not possible to determine whether or not Mr. Yrusta was subjected to torture. However, the Committee notes that, according to information provided by the State party under the follow-up procedure to the Views of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances, on 20 October 2017, the Seventh Bench of the Criminal Investigation Court closed the case because of the lack of procedural activity in a case with no known suspect. 6.7 The Committee therefore considers that reasonably available domestic remedies have been exhausted with respect to the complainants’ allegations concerning the lack of a prompt and impartial investigation, given that the case has been closed by the provincial courts, and with respect to their claims concerning the right to redress, including access to the truth, the opportunity to participate in the investigation and any claim for fair and adequate compensation. 6.8 With regard to the complainants’ allegations of a violation of article 6 of the Convention, the Committee notes that the complaint does not contain sufficient argumentation or information in this regard. However, the Committee considers that the GE.19-01524 9