CED/C/10/D/1/2013 which showed that he had again been beaten and tortured while in custody in the Province of Santa Fe. Similarly, the authors consider that the investigations requested by them on 8 March 2013 and 8 October 2013 have never been undertaken. They refer in particular to requests relating to a second autopsy on their brother’s body; handwriting tests; the seizure of the prison logbooks covering the days leading up to and including the day of his death; an examination of the objects found in the anus and stomach of Mr. Yrusta; and the seizure of his medical file and entry and exit logs of the prison staff of the Coronda Prison Facility No. 1 in the Province of Santa Fe. 7.7 The authors also claim that they continue to be denied the opportunity to participate in the investigative proceedings, which constitutes a violation of their right to justice and truth. They consider that the federal government could take a proactive role in the proceedings and refer the investigation to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Institutional Violence (PROCUVIN) in view of the complex nature of the case, which involves events occurring in different provinces with different jurisdictions. However, the proceedings remain before the Santa Fe provincial courts, while the complaints of torture filed previously remain in the Córdoba provincial courts, with no real progress being made in either case. 7.8 Furthermore, Santa Fe legislation establishes a procedure for the closure of cases that can be reviewed only following specific requests to that effect by private criminal plaintiffs. The authors state that, because they have been denied standing as private criminal plaintiffs since March 2013, they do not know whether the case has been closed on the grounds that the time limit prescribed by Provincial Act No. 13.004 has passed. The authors recall that, in accordance with the Brasilia Regulations Regarding Access to Justice for Vulnerable People and article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, “the persons must be offered the real possibility of filing a simple and prompt recourse. Any law or measure that obstructs or prevents persons from availing themselves of the recourse in question is a violation of the right of access to the courts …”. 5 In the light of the foregoing, the authors request that the Committee declare the present communication admissible. Committee’s consideration of admissibility B. 8.1 On 6 February 2015, during its eighth session, the Committee considered the question of the admissibility of the communication. 8.2 As required under article 31 (2) (c) of the Convention, the Committee ascertained that the same matter was not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee noted that the authors allege a violation of articles 1, 2, 3, 12 (1) and (2), 15, 17 (2) (c) and (d), 18, 20, 23 and 24 of the Convention on the basis of the facts presented in the communication, namely: (a) the alleged enforced disappearance of Mr. Yrusta in January 2013; (b) his transfer in January 2013 to a prison facility other than the one requested by him; (c) the acts of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment to which the authors claim Mr. Yrusta was subjected for three years of the years he was in prison; (d) the lack of information on the whereabouts of Mr. Yrusta when he was transferred to another prison facility without his family being informed; (e) the impossibility of communicating with Mr. Yrusta during a period of more than seven days until he was finally allowed to establish telephone contact with his family; (f) the inability of the authors and Mr. Yrusta’s mother to gain access to a court that would reach a decision without delay 5 GE.16-05682 See Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the case of Cantos v. Argentina, judgment of 28 November 2002 (Merits, Reparations and Costs), para. 52. 11