CAT/C/68/D/818/2017 rammed against the edge of the car door, and that, as she was being taken to the police station, she was caused repeatedly to hit her face against the partition inside the patrol car. The Committee also notes that it has been objectively established that the complainant was picked up by an ambulance from the entrance to the police station immediately after her release and that her nose was broken. Although, in practice, the definitional threshold between cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, on the one hand, and torture, on the other, is often not clear, the Committee recalls that it established, in general comment No. 2, that the obligation to prevent torture, laid down in article 2, is indivisible from and interdependent with the obligation to prevent cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.12 The Committee considers that the established facts of the case constitute, as a minimum, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of article 16 of the Convention, although it is unable to find sufficient evidence to state with certainty that they constitute torture within the meaning of article 1. It will therefore consider the communication under article 16 of the Convention. 8.3 The Committee must decide, in accordance with article 12 of the Convention, whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the complainant was subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and, if so, whether the State party’s authorities complied with their obligation to proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation. 13 8.4 The Committee recalls that the burden of proving the existence of prima facie evidence of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is borne by the complainant, who must present an arguable case, that is, submit substantiated arguments showing that she has been subjected to torture or cruel treatment. 14 However, when complainants are in a situation where they cannot elaborate on their case, such as when they have demonstrated that they have no possibility of obtaining documentation relating to their allegation of torture or have been deprived of their liberty, the burden of proof is reversed, and the State party concerned must investigate the allegations and verify the information on which the communication is based.15 In line with the State party’s obligation to investigate ex officio any allegation of torture or ill-treatment,16 it is the State authorities who bear the burden of providing the information to prove that they are not responsible for the allegations against them, as it cannot be expected that persons deprived of their liberty will be able to gather the necessary evidence in relation to the deprivation of their liberty. In this case, the Committee notes that the facts, and in particular the detention of the complainant, are sufficient to shift the burden of proof from the complainant to the authorities. The Committee is of the view that, given the circumstances of the case, the State party did not provide information sufficient to conclude that the complainant’s injuries were not caused while she was in detention. The possibility that the complainant had some kind of injury to her nose while she was at the police station cannot be ruled out on the basis of the still images from the security camera footage alone, given the quality of those images. In addition, in the report of the medical examination carried out on the day of the injury, which was provided by the State party itself, it is stated that the swelling was moderate, with no displacement, suggesting that the injury would not be obvious in security footage. It should be noted that this report contradicts the testimony given a year later by the same doctor, in which he stated that the swelling of the nose was obvious, thereby undermining the credibility of the version of the facts submitted to the Committee by the State party. Accordingly, the Committee is of the view that, in the light of the acts that the complainant described and to which she was subjected while in police custody, as well as her request for medical assistance immediately upon her release and her broken nose, it can be concluded that there was prima facie evidence of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, which has not been refuted by the State party. 8.5 Regarding the prompt and impartial investigation of acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Committee recalls that an investigation in itself is not sufficient to demonstrate the State party’s conformity with its obligations under article 12 13 14 15 16 6 Paragraph 3. Yrusta and Yrusta v. Argentina (CAT/C/65/D/778/2016), para. 7.4. General comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, para. 38. Ibid. Blanco Abad v. Spain, para. 8.2. GE.20-00488