CAT/C/MEX/CO/7 Review of interrogation and arrest procedures 16. The Committee regrets that, despite its repeated requests, the State party has not provided information about steps taken since the consideration of its previous periodic report to review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices and arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment, with a view to preventing torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 11). 17. The State party should ensure the systematic review of interrogation and arrest procedures, in accordance with article 11 of the Convention. Precautionary detention without charge (arraigo) 18. The Committee regrets that the State party has not removed the provisions permitting precautionary detention without charge (arraigo) from its domestic legislation, although it is aware that a constitutional amendment which, if approved, would repeal these provisions has been drafted. While taking note of the delegation’s explanations about the exceptional nature of this precautionary measure and the decline in its use, the Committee observes that its application allows the judicial authority, at the request of the Prosecution Service, to order the deprivation of liberty of persons suspected of belonging to a criminal organization, without any formal charge being laid, for a period of up to 40 days, extendable up to a maximum of 80, in order to ensure a successful investigation and protect persons or property or if there is a well-founded risk of flight (art. 16 of the Constitution). The Committee recalls that, in its decision in Ramiro Ramírez Martínez and others v. Mexico (CAT/C/55/D/500/2012, para. 17.5), of 4 August 2015, it reiterated its concerns about these provisions of law, especially the lack of monitoring and disproportionate duration of precautionary detention; the use, on occasions, of military facilities for precautionary detention purposes; the complaints of torture made by persons subjected to this form of detention; and the fact that precautionary detention could make it easier to have confessions presumably obtained under torture admitted as evidence (arts. 2, 11 and 16). 19. The Committee reiterates its previous recommendations (CAT/C/MEX/CO/5-6, para. 11, CAT/C/MEX/CO/4, para. 15 and CAT/C/55/D/500/2012, para. 19) urging the State party to eliminate provisions permitting precautionary detention without charge (arraigo) from its legislation. Confessions obtained as a result of torture 20. The Committee notes the provisions of article 264 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure and articles 50 to 54 of the General Act on Torture, establishing the inadmissibility and nullity of evidence obtained as a result of torture or violations of fundamental rights, and the corresponding case law of the Supreme Court. However, it regrets that it has received no information from the State party about court decisions in which confessions obtained through torture or ill-treatment have been disallowed as evidence. It therefore reiterates its concern about the consistent reports maintaining that the courts do not investigate complaints of this kind and instead shift the burden of proof to the alleged victims. The Committee is also concerned about reports indicating that torture is routinely used to extract confessions and that confessions obtained through torture are invoked against defendants in court as evidence of their guilt. The Committee also recalls the findings set out in the report entitled “Double Injustice”, issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner in Mexico on 15 March 2018, which documents in detail acts of torture and other violations of the suspects’ human rights being committed, tolerated and covered up during the investigation into the disappearance of 43 students from Ayotzinapa in September 2014 and the subsequent trial. In this connection, the Committee notes that the State party has not provided the information requested on progress made in the investigation into the death of Emmanuel Alejandro Blas Patiño, who reportedly died as a result of torture inflicted by members of the Ministry of Naval Affairs after his arrest on 27 October 2014 (arts. 2, 15 and 16). 21. GE.19-12617 The State party should: 5