CAT/C/55/D/500/2012 and limbs. He told them that he was in severe pain and had difficulty hearing, and yet had not received any medication. The public prosecutor refused to allow the relatives of Ramiro López to give him the medication he needed. 2.14 The relatives of Orlando Santaolaya were able to visit him for the first time on 24 June 2009 and noticed that he had injuries to his face, jaw, abdomen and hands. The relatives of Ramiro and Rodrigo Ramírez were unable to visit them until 17 July 2009. When they did, Ramiro described how he had been treated and had difficulty speaking because of his broken jaw. 2.15 During the 40 days of preventive custody, the complainants were bound hand and foot at night, and gagged and locked up during sleeping hours. They were prevented from going to the toilet and received repeated death threats. Procedure before the National Human Rights Commission 2.16 On 17 July 2009, the mother of Ramiro and Rodrigo Ramírez filed a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission, in which she detailed the treatment to which the complainants had been subjected. On 24 September 2009, she submitted another document to the National Commission, stating that she had gone to the Office of the Prosecution Service in Tijuana on several occasions, spoken to the prosecutor and informed him of the acts of torture, asked him to intervene and to authorize medical attention, and that the only response that she had received was to be told that the complainants had already received medical treatment. 2.17 On 24 September 2009, the relatives of Ramiro López filed a complaint of torture with the National Commission, stating that the Prosecution Service had refused to authorize the provision of essential medication. That same da y, the wives of Ramiro Ramírez and Orlando Santaolaya also filed a complaint of torture with the National Commission. 2 2.18 In a letter dated 30 October 2009, the National Commission stated that the complaint filed by the complainants’ relatives made reference to alleged conduct that fell within the sphere of “administrative responsibility”, and that accordingly the Ministry of Defence had been notified to enable it to inform the Army and Air Force Inspectorate-General with a view to investigating the facts. The National Commission added that the complaint had been “without substance”. 2.19 On 24 May 2010, the Mexican Commission for the Defence and Promotion of Human Rights requested the National Commission to reopen the case, on the grounds that acts of torture were not a matter of administrative responsibility, but were rather human rights violations, and that, by refusing to consider the complaint, the National Commission had failed to fulfil its legal mandate. In a letter of 3 June 2010, the National Commission informed the Mexican Commission that the case had been reopened. In July 2010, the National Commission conducted a medical and psychological examination of the complainants in line with the Istanbul Protocol. The results, however, remained confidential and were not passed on to the complainants’ relatives. Moreover, to date, the National Commission has not made any recommendations to the competent authorities. Criminal proceedings 2.20 On 29 July 2009, 43 days after the complainants had been arre sted, the Second District Federal Criminal Court in the state of Nayarit issued an arrest warrant against __________________ 2 GE.15-17782 The complainants claim that, according to the National Commission’s case file, of which they were unable to obtain a copy, the Prosecution Service replied to their relatives ’ complaints by asserting that the treatment received while in detention and preventive custody was “a matter of military discipline” and that “nothing happened”. 5/19