CAT/C/55/D/500/2012 was conducted, and that they were not allowed to report such acts and have their case promptly and impartially examined by the competent authorities. 17.7 The Committee recalls the obligation contained in article 12 of the Convention to carry out a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed. In this regard, the Committee notes that, despite the complainants’ obvious injuries on 17 June 2009 and the statements made by Ramiro López before the public prosecutor, there was no immediate investigation into the alleged acts. The State party has argued that the complainant did not file a formal complaint of torture. However, the Committee recalls that the relevant authorities must conduct investigations into torture of their own motion. In the present case, this omission was particularly serious considering that the victim was in the custody of the authority allegedly responsible for the acts. The Committee also notes that, on 1 August 2009, the complainants stated before the court that their confessions had been obtained under torture, in response to which the judicial authorities also failed to order an investigation. Furthermore, the Prosecution Service refused to receive complaints from the families of the complainants on seve ral occasions, arguing that it was a matter for the military courts. 17.8 The Committee further recalls that the investigation alone is not sufficient to demonstrate the State party’s fulfilment of its obligations under article 12, if it can be shown not to have been conducted promptly and impartially. 13 It recalls that promptness is essential to ensure that the victim may not continue to be subjected to torture because, in general, the physical traces of torture soon disappear. 14 In this respect, the Committee notes that the families’ complaint was eventually transferred to the Office of the Military Attorney-General, which merely summoned the family and the members of the military allegedly responsible and subsequently closed the case. The investigations reopened by the Attorney-General’s Office in June 2012, three years after the events, have failed to move beyond the preliminary investigation stage, with no reasons given for the excessive delay in investigation and no timely information having been provided to the complainants on the progress of the case. 15 The Committee also takes note of the serious concerns expressed by the complainants about the issuing of the medical and psychological report by experts of the Attorney General’s Office. Although these allegations have been challenged by the State party, it has failed to provide a copy of the report in its possession. 17.9 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee concludes that the State party has breached its obligations under articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. 17.10 The Committee notes the complainants’ allegations that no redress has been provided for the harm caused to them and their families. In view of the failure to carry out a prompt and impartial investigation into the allegations made by the complainants and of the points outlined in the preceding paragraphs, the Committee finds that the State party is also in breach of its obligations under article 14 of the Convention. 17.11 In regard to the complainants’ claim under article 15, the Committee notes that the criminal court in charge of the case issued a detention order against the complainants on the basis of their written confessions obtained under torture, despite the fact that the complainants had twice described before the court the manner in which they had been obtained. That decision was also upheld on appeal by the Twenty-fourth Circuit Court in Acapulco on the basis of the same statements. The Committee thus considers that the facts before it reveal a violation of the State party ’s __________________ 13 14 15 GE.15-17782 See, inter alia, communication No. 441/2010 (footnote 11 above), para. 9.4. Ibid., para. 9.5. See communication No. 207/2002, Dimitrijevic v. Serbia and Montenegro, Decision adopted on 24 November 2004, para. 5.4. 17/19