CAT/C/65/D/778/2016 Provincial Public Defender, Mr. Ganon, appealed the decision, arguing that a harmonious interpretation of Argentine legislation required that victims’ rights should be interpreted in such a way as to protect the right to due process, and that the term “victim” should be defined broadly, in accordance with international human rights standards. On 12 November 2014, the higher court rejected the appeal on the basis of previous jurisprudence that prohibited the Provincial Public Criminal Defence Service from intervening as a plaintiff, but declared that there was a need to remedy the lack of legal representation of the plaintiffs, who had the right to bring an action. On 3 December 2014, Mr. Ganon submitted a constitutional complaint to the Court of Appeal, alleging that the rights of Mr. Yrusta’s sisters to access to justice and to be considered as victims had been violated through the denial of their request to be represented by the Provincial Public Criminal Defence Service, which was constitutionally empowered to provide legal representation to the victims of human rights violations committed by public officials, particularly bearing in mind the institutional inability of other legal aid services to offer assistance in that regard and the complete lack of progress in the investigation carried out by the Public Legal Service into the causes of Mr. Yrusta’s death. On 24 June 2015, the Court of Appeal rejected the constitutional complaint on the grounds that it merely reiterated arguments put forward before lower-instance courts, that the decision being appealed was not constitutionally flawed and that the complaint was not an appropriate third-instance remedy for reviewing facts and questions of evidence analysed by lower-instance courts. 4.5 The State party adds that the complainants have refused to avail themselves of the legal aid services available in the Province of Santa Fe, which are provided by victim assistance offices and independent lawyers hired by the provincial authorities on a case-bycase basis, preferably within the framework of agreements with bar associations. In connection with the complainants’ claim that the lawyers providing the legal aid services made available by the provincial authorities might not be independent and impartial, the State party refers to article 27 of Provincial Executive Decree No. 1326, which states that where there is a clear conflict of interest involving the provincial government or where the alleged perpetrator is a provincial official who has acted in his or her official capacity, the legal aid due should be provided within the framework of agreements with bar associations, never by a lawyer who answers to the provincial government, thereby ensuring the fullest protection of the right to a defence of the beneficiary of aid and the provincial government. It is thus clear that, given the availability of the legal aid and representation regulated by Decree No. 1326, the complainants have alternative means of exercising their rights. Thus, even if it is not possible for them to be represented in court by Mr. Ganon, the Province of Santa Fe has mechanisms with which to ensure that they are provided with legal representation and safeguard their right of access to justice. 4.6 In addition, the State party asserts that, on 25 February 2014, the complainants filed an objection to jurisdiction, calling on the provincial courts to decline jurisdiction and to refer the case to the federal courts, in the light of the allegations of enforced disappearance made in the communication that they had submitted to the Committee on Enforced Disappearances on 11 September 2013. On 13 April 2014, the trial judge dismissed the objection filed by the complainants, stating that the allegations of enforced disappearance made by the complainants were groundless, since Mr. Yrusta was being detained pursuant to a lawfully imposed sentence. The Provincial Public Defender, Mr. Ganon, appealed that decision arguing that no records of Mr. Yrusta’s transfers existed, that his family had been provided with no information and that international human rights standards for custodial sentences had not been met. The appeal was rejected, at which point Mr. Ganon filed another appeal, which was found inadmissible by the Court of Appeal on 3 July 2015. The complainants, represented by Mr. Ganon, filed an application challenging the constitutionality of the Court’s inadmissibility decision. The application was rejected. On 12 April 2016, Mr. Ganon filed a motion for reconsideration with the Supreme Court of the Province of Santa Fe on the grounds that the previous court proceedings were unconstitutional. On 18 October 2016, the Supreme Court rejected the motion, but decided to refer the allegations relating to the investigation of the enforced disappearance to the federal courts. The State party submits that it is clear from that decision that the Supreme Court was aware of the importance of the recommendations made by the Committee on Enforced Disappearances in the Views it adopted on 11 March 2016 and that it considered GE.19-01524 5