CAT/C/55/D/500/2012 7.3 Lastly, the State party informs the Committee of the legal framework that ensures victims of torture obtain redress and have the right to fair a nd adequate compensation, including rehabilitation, as well as the legal framework that prohibits the use of evidence obtained through torture in any legal proceedings. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s submission 8.1 On 12 February 2013, the complainants called for the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies to be set aside in the present case. 7 8.2 The complainants maintain that no genuine improvement in their situation is likely given that no date has yet been set for the investigating jud ge to pass judgement. They also point to serious shortcomings in the renewed investigations by the Attorney-General’s Office, noting that the expert report issued in October 2012 by experts from the Attorney-General’s Office was seriously flawed; no comprehensive assessment of the possible physical effects of torture was conducted and the psychological impact assessment was distorted, in violation of the Istanbul Protocol, to conclude that “there was no evidence of torture, but only of ill-treatment”. The complainants note that the experts failed to take into account the previous medical reports available or the accounts of the victims to assess whether their injuries were consistent with the information provided. Regarding the psychological evidence, the experts concluded that symptoms of low mood, insomnia and other disorders were the result of imprisonment and not of acts of torture, without taking into account the provisions of the Istanbul Protocol, which sets forth that “the symptoms that the survivor has and the torture story that he or she claims to have experienced should be considered as a whole” and that the report should describe the degree of consistency between them. 8 8.3 The complainants note other shortcomings in the ongoing investigation, including the failure to launch further inquiries since the reopening of the case. For example, the public prosecutor did not seek to intervene in the judicial proceedings against the victims, in which the Military Prosecutor ’s Office took statements from, but failed to question, several members of the military who were allegedly involved. It also failed to take statements from the complainants or conduct any further investigation, and shelved the case on 6 January 2010, only reopening it for consideration by the civilian authorities in May 2012 following the submission of the present complaint to the Committee. 9. On 26 March 2013, the complainants requested the following measures of redress: (a) Their acquittal and release; (b) The payment of fair compensation proportional to the gravity of the violations, including for loss of earnings following arrest, for the costs incurred as a result of the violations (legal expenses, relocation of family members, etc.) and for the physical and psychological damage suffered; (c) Free and immediate access to appropriate and effective medical care and psychological support; (d) A reinvestigation of the facts to uncover the truth and a public acknowledgement of the State’s responsibility; __________________ 7 8 12/19 See communication No. 291/2006, Ali v. Tunisia. See the Committee’s concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Mexico (CAT/C/MEX/CO/5-6), para. 17. GE.15-17782