CAT/C/55/D/500/2012 caught in flagrante delicto in order to avoid issuing an arrest warrant and to arrest them arbitrarily. 5.9 The complainants contend that the decision by the public prosecutor to hold them in military custody constituted a grave risk to their safety, particularly in the light of the evident injuries described in their medical reports. Furthermore, the lack of any investigation into the alleged torture, notwithstanding the statements by Ramiro López and the injuries presented by the other complainants, is contrary to Mexican legislation and international standards, since a formal complaint of torture is not required to initiate proceedings. 5.10 According to the complainants, in Mexico it is common for medical reports to find no evidence of torture despite the presence of multiple injuries. Findings in such cases should be entrusted not to doctors but to the investigative authorities. They point out that the conclusions reached may be accounted for by the biased opinions of the medical experts, because if they found that torture had been com mitted, it would seriously jeopardize the institutions to which they themselves belong. The complainants maintain that investigations should be independent, as required by the Istanbul Protocol. 5.11 The complainants submit that the public defender who arrived at the military barracks failed to provide them with any information and merely told them to sign their statements. He also failed to request an investigation into their obvious injuries. They note that this type of behaviour is not uncommon when such procedures are performed at military facilities, since public defenders are likely to put themselves at risk if they try to protect persons in military custody and are thus unable to provide an effective defence. 5.12 Lastly, the complainants note that preventive custody during investigations is not subject to legal controls since it is not ordered within the context of ongoing criminal proceedings, unlike preventive custody during trial. Decision by the Committee on the State party’s request to consider the admissibility and the merits of the communication separately 6. On 25 July 2012, the Committee informed the parties of its decision, adopted by its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures, to examine the admissibility together with the merits of the communication. Additional observations by the State party on the admissibility and the merits of the communication 7.1 On 19 October 2012, the State party reiterated its arguments regarding the inadmissibility of the complaint and called for the complainants to cooperate with the investigations of the Attorney-General’s Office. 7.2 The State party also made observations on the merits of the complaint, submitting that, on 8 June 2012, the Attorney-General’s Office launched a preliminary investigation into possible acts of torture. It adds that the Attorney -General’s Office has been reviewing the facts and the conduct of the Office of the Military Attorney General. Various measures have been taken in this regard, including the appearance of the complainants before the Prosecution Service from 2 to 5 October 2012. The Attorney-General’s Office is also taking statements from the complainants. Moreover, the complainants have undergone a specialized medical and psychological examination for cases of torture that was conducted by official experts, in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol. GE.15-17782 11/19