Notwithstanding, the judge did not automatically arrange for the competent judicial authorities to investigate the complaints. nor most of the physical torture (“bagging”, “hooding” and low-voltage electric shocks) left external signs of injury on the body; 7.3 The action of Court of Investigation N° 44 consisted in issuing various instructions for the medical reports on the examinations carried out during the period of incommunicado detention, as well details of the examination conducted in prison, to be entered in the record. In addition, two expert appraisals were obtained on 28 July and 20 November 1992, respectively. The first was by the forensic physician of the examining court and the second by the official forensic expert of Court of Investigation N° 2. – With regard to the dating of the various bruises, the complainant adduced the theory put forward by the first expert, defining two of them as between two and six days old, while the other two were said to be more recent. The fact that the bruises had not been detected earlier could have been due to a defective physical examination or to the poor light; – With regard to the value of the victim’s testimony considering the lack of objective evidence, reference was made to the case law of the Supreme Court, according to which account should be taken of the absence of reasonable doubt, verisimilitude corroborated by circumstantial evidence, and consistency in the charges. Furthermore, in the course of the police raid on 29 January 1992 many detainees complained of ill-treatment to the forensic physician and the examining magis-trate. The complainant therefore called for statements to be taken from the person with whom she had shared a cell while in detention, as well as from the officers on guard. 7.4 The author indicated that the forensic reports made available by Court of Investigation N° 2 did not include the one for 31 January 1992, which is not to be found in the record and has therefore not been appraised by the experts. The judicial proceedings also failed to determine the exact time of the prison medical examination on 3 February, although the certificate sent by the penitentiary centre to the author’s counsel suggests that it took place in the morning. 7.5 The order definitively shelving the proceedings states that “it is necessary to establish, on the one hand, the impossibility of furnishing proof of any of the acts of aggression recounted by the complainant, i.e., blows to the head, the placing of a plastic bag over the head, kicks to the genitals, hair-pulling and loss of consciousness, since they were not confirmed in any medical examination and yet should have left some kind of palpable injury, according to the forensic medical report, and, on the other hand, the existence of other injuries as described for the first time in the medical report of 3 February”. It also indicates that it is not possible to reach any conclusion regarding whether the cause of the injuries described “was accidental, intentional or self-inflicted, since the three possibilities are compatible with the objective findings, and the statement of the complainant, which constitutes the other source of information, is not supported by the chronology of the injuries established by the existing medical reports. In view of the impossibility of establishing the cause of the injuries, no offence can be said to have been committed and the proceedings must therefore be shelved”. 7.7 On 5 September 1995 the Provincial High Court dismissed the appeal. On 28 September 1995 the author made an application for amparo to the Constitutional Court as she considered that the Provincial High Court’s decision violated articles 15 (right to physical and moral integrity) and 24 (right to the protection of the courts) of the Constitution, the latter on the ground of failure to allow the submission of evidence proposed by the author, namely, a statement by the prison doctor who noted the injuries and statements by the members of the Guardia Civil responsible for custody. 7.8 On 29 January 1996, the Constitutional Court rejected the application for amparo, holding that “the right to bring an action at law does not in turn imply an absolute right to the institution and full conduct of a criminal proceeding, but entails only the right to a reasoned judicial decision on the claims made, which may well be to stay or dismiss the proceedings or, indeed, to declare the complaint inadmissible”. Examination on the merits 7.6 This decision was challenged by appeal based, among other things, on the following arguments: 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. – With regard to virtually all the acts of aggression described by the author (blows to the head, kicks to the genitals, hair-pulling and loss of consciousness), it was argued that these involved the use of methods intended to leave no physical marks on the victim. Neither the alleged forms of psychological or sexual torture, 8.2 The Committee observes that, under article 12 of the Convention, the authorities have the obligation to proceed to an investigation ex officio, wherever there are reasonable grounds to believe 41