CAT/C/68/D/818/2017 Court, together with the medical reports and security camera stills, demonstrates the complete lack of substantiation of the complainant’s allegations. Complainant’s comments 5.1 The complainant responded to the State party’s comments on admissibility and the merits on 10 April 2018. First, she argues that the State party provides no explanation or justification for how a person who did not have injuries when she was arrested came to have them when she was released. It also fails to note whether the matter was investigated. The complainant points out that the medical report drawn up on the day of the injury, which was submitted by the State party itself, reads “moderate swelling, no displacement”. A year later, the same doctor stated in his testimony that the swelling of the nose was obvious. It seems reasonable, however, to give greater importance to the report drawn up on the day of the events. If the swelling was moderate at the time of the examination, it might not have been very visible at the police station. In any event, it is the State party that has failed to provide a rational explanation of what caused the injury.6 5.2 Second, the State party does not clarify why the police did not open an investigation into the incident, even though the complainant had informed them that she had been assaulted, and why the complainant was not taken to a health facility. According to a statement made by one of the officers who had not taken part in the arrest of the complainant but was at the police station while she was in custody, he asked her who had hit her and informed her of the steps to take to file a complaint. However, despite the complainant’s allegations that she had been subjected to ill-treatment by members of the same police force, and the strange fact that she was picked up by an ambulance at the entrance to the police station,7 the police did not open an investigation, thereby failing to discharge their duty of care. 8 5.3 Third, the State party does not explain why the complainant’s statement and existing injuries did not justify full judicial proceedings, including a trial. Lastly, the complainant points out again that the State party considers the issue of torture to be irrelevant, as it does not accept the recommendations of the Council of Europe and the United Nations or recognize the existence of a structural problem. 9 State party’s observations on the complainant’s comments 6.1 On 5 August 2019, the State party responded to the complainant’s comments by emphasizing that criminal proceedings had indeed been instituted as a result of the allegations made by the complainant and that the evidence she requested had been produced. However, the case was closed in the absence of any evidence that the accused police officers had committed an offence. The State party emphasizes once again that the stills from the security cameras at the police station where the complainant was questioned show no signs of the violence that she claims to have suffered. It also notes again that, according to the report of the health services, the complainant “reeked of alcohol”. It adds that, according to a statement from a person who was at the discotheque where the complainant allegedly stole wallets, the complainant said, “I know how to make an injury report that will get you in trouble.” 6.2 The State party reiterated its request for the communication to be found inadmissible or, alternatively, dismissed on the merits. 6 7 8 9 4 The complainant again notes that the burden of proof is reversed when harm is done to a person in detention. According to the police officer’s full testimony submitted by the complainant as an annex to her initial communication, he acknowledges that the complainant “had requested the assistance of an ambulance” upon her departure from the police station. The complainant cites Blanco Abad v. Spain (CAT/C/20/D/59/1996), para. 8.6, according to which a formal complaint is not needed in order for the State to open an investigation. The complainant cites CAT/C/ESP/CO/6/Add.1, para. 35 (in the opinion of the State party, the public holds the work of the law enforcement agencies in high esteem, “a fact that corresponds to the extremely low rate of irregularities in the conduct of the police”). GE.20-00488