CAT/C/55/D/500/2012 the complainants, ordering their transfer to Federal Social Rehabilitation Centre No. 4 in Tepic, Nayarit, on 31 July. 2.21 On 1 August 2009, the Court took preliminary statements from the complainants, who claimed that the statements given to the Prosecution Service had been obtained through torture. Nevertheless, the judicial authorities failed to order an investigation. On 4 August 2009, the complainants made an additional statement, in which they denied the charges against them and reasserted that their initial statements had been obtained under torture when they were blindfolded. Despite the consistency of the complainants’ statements and the details that they had provided on the acts of torture, the Court failed to order an investigation. 2.22 On 6 August 2009, despite the grounds for declaring the complainants ’ confessions inadmissible, the Court cited their statements as grounds for issuing a detention order 3 against them for the offences of organized crime, possession of weapons reserved for military use, kidnapping and robbery. 2.23 The complainants appealed to the Twenty-fourth Circuit Court in Acapulco. On 8 January 2010, the Court upheld the detention order, again on the basis of the confessions, which, it argued, were “generally more truthful owing to their consistency with the facts”, while the statements given subsequently “lacked evidentiary value as there was no other evidence to corrobora te them”. The complainants note that they remain in pretrial detention awaiting a final judgement. 2.24 On 20 October 2009, the wives of Ramiro and Rodrigo Ramírez went to the Attorney-General’s Office to file a complaint of torture. After waiting for more than three hours without being attended to, they left. On 21 October 2009, they returned and a public prosecutor refused to receive the complaint, arguing that the acts came under military jurisdiction as they had been committed by military personnel. On 23 October, they filed a complaint with the Office of the Military Attorney -General and were summoned to testify on 14 December 2009. At that appearance, they were asked if they could further substantiate the reported facts, to which they said no. Since th e appearance, they have received no further information on the alleged investigations into their complaint. 2.25 On 28 October 2009, the relatives of Ramiro López filed a complaint of torture with the Attorney-General’s Office, which referred the case to the Office of the Military Attorney-General. 2.26 The complainants argue that domestic remedies have been exhausted as, according to the Committee’s case law, the investigation into the acts of torture committed against them has taken too long to meet the standard of promptness required under article 12 of the Convention. The complainants indicate that more than two years have passed since complaints were filed by them in court and by their relatives before the Attorney-General’s Office, despite which there has been little progress with investigations. The only update that they have received was that the complaints were being investigated by the military courts. The prolonged inaction of the investigative authorities in the face of serious human rights violat ions is, in the complainants’ view, an insurmountable procedural obstacle, which means that the judicial remedy has failed to satisfy the condition of promptness required by the Convention. 2.27 The complainants add that referring investigations into torture to the military authorities ensures impunity in the trial and punishment of those responsible for human rights violations. They note that the Committee has expressed concern that in __________________ 3 6/19 A preventive measure of remand in custody governed by article 19 of the Constitution. GE.15-17782