CAT/C/52/D/366/2008 father, which was dismissed by the Public Prosecution Service on 15 April 2004; the application to reopen the case submitted by the author’s father and sister; the decision of the representatives of the Public Prosecution Service on 9 October 2006, concluding that there were insufficient grounds to order the reopening of the case; as well as various procedures undertaken by the author’s family before the judicial authorities to convince them to consider the author’s complaint of torture. Given the circumstances and the absence of observations from the State party querying the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee finds that there is no obstacle to the admissibility of the complaint in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. 8.4 The Committee takes note of the State party’s observation that the complaint should be declared inadmissible in accordance with rule 113 (f) of the Committee’s rules of procedure on the grounds that the time elapsed since exhaustion of domestic remedies was excessively prolonged. The Committee considers that the period between 9 October 2006, when the request to reopen the case was denied, and the submission of the present complaint on 18 November 2008 was not so unreasonably prolonged as to render consideration of the claims unduly difficult for the Committee or the State party. Consequently, the Committee finds that there are no obstacles to admissibility under rule 113 (f) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 8.5 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that while he was detained in Comodoro Rivadavia police station No. 2 he was subjected to ill-treatment and torture and that the State party failed to conduct a proper and effective investigation leading to the punishment of the perpetrators. The Committee considers that the author’s complaint is sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. Consequently, the Committee finds the communication admissible and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted by the parties, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 9.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that he was subjected to torture and ill-treatment by the police at the Comodoro Rivadavia police station and that on 17 November 2003 he was the victim of a bilateral testicular ablation and other injuries to the neck area; that the complaint submitted to the Public Prosecution Service on 19 November 2003 was arbitrarily dismissed, primarily on the basis of incorrect medical reports, as shown by the clinical psychology report of 7 December 2007 prepared at the request of his defence counsel; that his request to have the case reopened was considered superficially by representatives of the Public Prosecution Service; and that his complaint was never considered by a judge despite the seriousness of his injuries. In these circumstances, he alleges that the State party’s judicial authorities did not take measures to conduct a proper and effective investigation and punish those responsible. On the contrary, they obstructed his defence by improperly administering medication to him so that he could not testify against the police officers responsible. As a result, his complaint was arbitrarily dismissed and his aggressors were not punished. 9.3 The Committee notes that, when considering the author’s complaint of alleged torture, between 19 November 2003 and 15 April 2004, the Office of Prosecutor No. 2 of Comodoro Rivadavia requested information about the state of the author’s physical and mental health from both the prison authorities and the Regional Hospital; that it took statements from the police officers who had been on duty on 17 November 2003, and from third persons unrelated to the complaint, including the doctors and the member of the fire brigade who had come to the author’s assistance, and other detainees who had been in the same unit as the author. Subsequently, between 23 August 2006 and 20 November 2006, an official from the Prosecutor’s Office and a police officer attached to the Public Prosecution 10 GE.14-06259