CAT/C/65/D/778/2016 those recommendations as a supervening circumstance. Accordingly, and above and beyond Mr. Ganon’s standing to represent the complainants in court, the Supreme Court decided to refer the investigation of the enforced disappearance of Mr. Yrusta to the federal courts with a view to safeguarding the complainants’ right to the effective protection of the courts, avoiding undue delays and thus preventing Argentina from incurring responsibility under international law. In the State party’s view, all the complainants’ allegations about what happened to Mr. Yrusta reveal two facts: first, they reveal acts that could constitute the crime of enforced disappearance – acts that ceased when Mr. Yrusta was found dead in his cell – and that are currently being investigated by the federal courts; and, second, they reveal allegations of torture and other investigations relating to the causes of Mr. Yrusta’s death that will remain the responsibility of the provincial courts. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 18 June 2018, the complainants submitted their comments on the State party’s observations. They contend that the State party has failed to conduct a serious investigation of the allegations that Mr. Yrusta was subjected to torture and that this has been clear from the outset, since the Argentine courts classified the death as suicide and the current case file is entitled Yrusta, Roberto Agustín re/his death. The complainants also contend that the evidence produced by the investigation as reflected in the case file, such as the presence of objects in the victim’s anus and stomach, the marks on his body and statements by some officials, who had confessed before Mr. Yrusta’s death that they had used their anti-riot guns on him, constitutes sufficient grounds for an investigation of torture or other forms of ill-treatment. The complainants add that the prison officers who were responsible for Mr. Yrusta when the torture was committed were heard only as witnesses by the provincial police force, which answers to the same authority as the prison service, and that this brings into question the impartiality and effectiveness of the investigation. They also claim that the State party has not provided the technical or financial resources needed for an impartial and effective investigation. In the complainants’ view, the allegations concern serious matters – especially in the light of the recommendations that the Committee on Enforced Disappearances made with regard to the same facts 3 – that have an impact on the investigations into the causes of Mr. Yrusta’s death. 5.2 In addition, the complainants allege that, as a result of the State party’s unwillingness to conduct a serious investigation of their allegations of torture and an inadequate framework for the administration of justice, they are still unable to exercise their right of access to a judicial process that would enable them to know what happened to Mr. Yrusta. The complainants maintain that the State party has consistently refused to conduct the investigative proceedings they have requested, prolonging the investigation, with more than five years having passed since the events in question. They also maintain that the State party has not undertaken the investigation requested by them on 8 March and 8 October 2013. They refer in particular to requests relating to a second autopsy by the Supreme Court’s Forensic Medicine Service or other credible institutions; the seizure of the duty logbooks for the days preceding Mr. Yrusta’s death in the Coronda Prison Facility; the report on the operations conducted in that period by the Coronda prison’s special operations unit; reports by the health personnel working in the prison in that period; an examination of the objects found in Mr. Yrusta’s anus and stomach at the time of his death; the seizure of Mr. Yrusta’s medical records and of the entry and exit logs for prison staff members on duty on the days on which Mr. Yrusta was allegedly tortured and the day on which he later died; the results of the X-rays taken during the autopsy; and the taking of additional witness statements and handwriting tests. In addition, the complainants’ inability to intervene as plaintiffs in the case in which the causes of Mr. Yrusta’s death is being investigated has meant that they have been unable to request investigative measures, provide evidence or prevent the case from being closed in accordance with the time frames established in provincial criminal procedure laws on the closure of cases with no known suspect. On the date on which their additional comments were submitted, the complainants did not know whether the investigation into the causes of Mr. Yrusta’s death had been closed. The complainants also stress that, since Mr. Yrusta’s death, the only proceedings that have been 3 6 Committee on Enforced Disappearances, Yrusta v. Argentina (CED/C/10/D/1/2013). GE.19-01524