CAT/C/55/D/500/2012 Complainants’ comments on the State party’s submissions 5.1 On 13 July 2012, the complainants reiterated their argument that the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies should be set aside in the present case, given the unreasonably prolonged investigation. 5.2 In respect of the investigation launched by the National Human Rights Commission, the complainants maintain that the Commission is an advisory body whose recommendations are non-binding and therefore cannot replace the work of the judiciary. The Commission’s investigations are thus irrelevant to the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Moreover, the Commission has failed to conta ct the complainants since it launched a new investigation on 3 June 2010. 5.3 The complainants submit that, despite the State party’s claim that the constitutional reform is a step forward, its success depends on its de facto implementation, which requires the amendment of secondary legislation — including the current Code of Military Justice — that remains incompatible with international treaties. They note that the bill to amend this law has yet to be adopted by the Mexican Congress and add that the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling is not legally binding on all Mexican judges. 5.4 The complainants maintain that President Calderón publicly stated that he would instruct prosecution services to try cases of human rights violations committed by military personnel in civilian courts. However, the Ministry of Defence continues to uphold the existence of military courts and their right to consider such cases. 5.5 The complainants note that they have not been informed that the civilian courts have reopened investigations, which demonstrates negligence on the part of the State party. They further note that, in any event, that would not change the fact that three years have passed without any progress being made in the investigation. The complainants add that, even if investigations were reopened by the civilian courts, these proceedings would offer very little hope of success given the overall number of convictions for torture in Mexico. 5.6 The complainants submit that the State party has provided a version of eve nts that has been fabricated by the military authorities. As to the alleged tip -off received by phone by the military, they note that anonymous telephone calls are the usual argument given by the military to justify arbitrary detention. They add that the c ivilian police should be in charge of receiving such information. 5.7 The complainants draw attention to witness statements used in the criminal proceedings against them that confirm the time and place of their arrest, in accordance with the initial submission. 6 They also highlight that, when they were taken to the aforementioned house, the weapons and the person who they had supposedly abducted were already there, which demonstrates that the military authorities clearly wished to incriminate them for offences of kidnapping and possession of weapons that they did not commit. 5.8 The complainants allege that they were not brought before the Prosecution Service immediately, as required by the Constitution, but were taken to various locations, tortured and subsequently brought back to the military barracks where they were shown to the media. The public prosecutor arrived only a few hours after the press conference. They stress that the authorities made up the claim that they were __________________ 6 10/19 The complainants have provided a copy of five eyewitness statement s confirming the detention by military officers of Ramiro and Rodrigo Ramírez and Orlando Santaolaya in front of the Oceana hotel, as described in the initial submission. GE.15-17782