CAT/C/55/D/500/2012 the State party cases of torture committed by military personnel against civilians during the performance of their duties continue to be tried in military courts. 4 Background to the involvement of the Mexican armed forces in enforcing law and order 2.28 The complainants point out that the facts should be considered in the context of the State party’s efforts to control organized crime, which have allegedly been stepped up under the presidency of Felipe Calderón. Within this context, the Special Federal Army and Air Force Support Unit was established by decree under the Min istry of Defence to assist the civil authorities in law enforcement operations. Since then, thousands of members of the armed forces have been deployed to that end. 2.29 The military intervention has reportedly led to a wave of human rights violations, including enforced disappearances, executions, torture, sexual abuse and arbitrary detention. 5 The complainants claim that impunity reigns in such cases and that there is a lack of political will to combat it. The impunity is compounded by the referral of cases to military courts, as already noted by the Committee. 2.30 Owing to its location on the border with the United States of America, Baja California has been particularly affected by the fight against organized crime, and the army has assumed complete responsibility for law and order in several parts of the state. In addition to the aforementioned violations, military intervention in Baja California has allegedly consisted of raids to detain individuals in the absence of arrest warrants. The persons in question are held in preventive custody in military barracks, particularly those belonging to Infantry Battalion No. 28. 2.31 Lastly, the complainants note the human rights issues stemming from the use of preventive custody during investigations (arraigo prejudicial), given the shortcomings in processing and implementing it and the vulnerability of persons in such preventive custody, which explains the large number of torture cases, as already noted by the Committee, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and the Special Rapporteur on torture. Because it is imposed at the pre-investigation stage, preventive custody also violates the principle of the presumption of innocence. The constitutional reform of 2008 made it possible to order preventive custody in cases of organized crime. The complainants indicate that the measure has been overused by the judiciary, bearing in mind that the number of preventive custody applications rose by 250 per cent between 2006 and 2010. The complaint 3.1 The complainants claim a violation of article 2, read in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention. They maintain that the treatment received in detention and preventive custody amounts to torture under article 1, in that State off icials deliberately inflicted severe pain and suffering on them to make them confess to the alleged offences of involvement in a criminal organization and kidnapping. The injuries sustained as a result of that treatment are recorded in the medical report produced by the Attorney-General’s Office. Ramiro López suffered severe and irreversible damage to his hearing and Ramiro Ramírez was left with serious facial injuries. 3.2 The complainants assert that, by allowing them to be detained without a warrant, the State party failed in its duty to prevent torture. The State party also allowed them to be held incommunicado in military facilities, where they were denied access to a __________________ 4 5 GE.15-17782 See the Committee’s concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Mexico (CAT/C/MEX/CO/4), para. 14. The complainants cite reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the Mexican Commission for the Defence and Promotion of Human Rights as proof of such violations. 7/19