CAT/C/55/D/500/2012 obligation to ensure that no confession made under torture is used in legal proceedings. 17.12 The Committee recalls that the State party, by ratifying the Convention and voluntarily accepting the Committee’s competence under article 22, undertook to cooperate with the Committee in good faith in applying and givin g full effect to the individual complaints procedure established thereunder. The Committee also notes that the State party’s obligations include the observance of the rules adopted by the Committee, which are inseparable from the Convention, including rule 114 of its rules of procedure concerning requests for interim measures to avoid irreparable damage to the victim. 16 Thus, by failing to provide Ramiro López with the appropriate specialist medical treatment required for his serious ear injuries, as request ed by the Committee on 14 October 2013 and subsequently on 27 June 2014, the State party did not take into account its obligations under article 22 of the Convention. 18. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is of the view that the facts before it reveal a violation of articles 1; 2, paragraph 1; 12 to 15; and 22 of the Convention. 19. In accordance with rule 118, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee urges the State party to: (a) launch a thorough and effective investigation into the acts of torture; (b) prosecute, sentence and punish appropriately the persons found guilty of the violations; (c) order the immediate release of the complainants; and (d) award full reparation, including fair and adequate compensation, to the complainants and their families, and provide the complainants with as full a rehabilitation as possible. The Committee also reiterates the need to repeal the provision of preventive custody (arraigo) from its legislation and to bring the Code of Military Justice fully into line with the decisions of the Inter -American Court of Human Rights to ensure that ordinary courts have sole jurisdiction over c ases involving human rights violations. The Committee urges the State party to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of this decision, of the steps it has taken in conformity with the above views. __________________ 16 18/19 See, inter alia, the Committee’s communications No. 249/2004, Dar v. Norway, Decision adopted on 11 May 2007, para 16.3; 300/2006, Tebourski v. France, Decision adopted on 1 May 2007, para 8.6; and 297/2006, Sogi v. Canada, Decision adopted on 16 November 2007, para. 10.3. GE.15-17782