CAT/C/55/D/500/2012 (e) The thorough investigation and criminal and administrative punishment of those responsible; the adoption of legislation prohibiting the Mexican army from performing police duties; the repeal of the provision of preventive custody in the Constitution; the reform of the Code of Military Justice to exclude cases of human rights violations from military jurisdiction; the reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure to instruct the legal authorities to rule out evidence obtained through torture and confessions not obtained before a judge; the guarantee that the Attorney-General’s Office will employ qualified personnel to serve as experts in the implementation of the Istanbul Protocol; and human rights training for security, military and prison officers. Additional observations by the State party 10.1 On 29 May 2013, the State party reiterated its arguments regarding the inadmissibility of the complaint and stated that the medical report issued on 10 January 2013 had taken into account the background of the case and had concluded that the complainants had suffered minor injuries, but did not display the signs and symptoms associated with torture. The State party emphasizes that the experts who carried out the examination had received specialized training on the effective documentation of torture at a seminar on the prevention, investigation and punishment of torture organized by the Secretariat for International Relations. It adds that the public prosecutor met with the complainants to obtain their assent for the expert to conduct the medical and psychological examination, which they gave. 10.2 The State party adds that medical care by an ear, nose and throat specialist has been requested for Ramiro López. Regarding the alleged jaw injuries of Ramiro Ramírez, the State party notes that the aforementioned medical report indicated that he could speak coherently without any sign of recent injury, which is not symptomatic of a fractured jaw. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations and request for interim measures 11.1 On 8 October 2013, the complainants pointed out that the State party had failed to provide a copy of the aforementioned medical report in its possession as an item of evidence. They stress that the report contains neither a factual description of their signs and symptoms, nor a comprehensive analysis of the background to their case. They note that relevant aspects of previous examinations were not taken into consideration and that the examination was inadequate and superficial, interpreting the findings in a biased manner and out of context in order to avoid reaching the conclusion that torture had occurred. For example, the doctor discounted the allegations by Ramiro Ramírez about the blows to his jaw on the basis of a superficial examination, without consulting the medical files available from the prison that established that, for several months, he could eat only soft food because of his jaw injuries, and without ordering additional tests such as X -rays. As for Ramiro López, the doctor upheld the 2009 reports that described “minor injuries that should take less than 15 days to heal”, despite finding an ear injury three years later. In respect of the psychological examination, the report stated that there was no evidence of post traumatic stress disorder, even though no appropriate psychological tests had been conducted. Furthermore, most of the tests were personality-based, despite their scant relevance for finding evidence of torture, and many value judgements were passed that criminalized the complainants and invalidated their testimony. 11.2 The complainants also maintain that it is the prosecutor, and not the experts, who should determine whether torture has taken place, on the basis of the experts ’ clinical opinion as to whether the signs observed are linked to, or consistent with, acts of torture. They conclude that the examination lacked objectivity, comprehensiveness and GE.15-17782 13/19