CAT/C/71/D/759/2016 the Committee’s jurisprudence, arguing that “mere doubts about the effectiveness of a remedy do not absolve the complainant from seeking to exhaust such a remedy”.8 4.3 The State party also notes that the complainant has not at any time taken part in the proceedings intended to resolve the allegations contained in his communication. After the first complaint was filed on 29 April 2013, the State Prosecutor’s Office opened preliminary investigation ALA/SC/05/0328/2013, concerning offences of bodily injury and damage, against various police officers. 4.4 The State party notes that, on 27 October 2016, after various items of evidence had been secured and without the complainant’s cooperation, criminal proceedings were instituted against the police officers identified by the complainant. These criminal proceedings are ongoing, and are proving effective, being focused on clarifying the facts and punishing those responsible for the violations reported by the complainant. 4.5 The State party recalls that the complainant has a number of appropriate remedies available to him at the domestic level to challenge the issues that he believes are not in line with his claims. It also notes that the Committee found communication E.Y. v. Canada 9 inadmissible on the grounds that the complainant had not exhausted the appropriate domestic remedies. 4.6 The State party notes that the complainant has not participated in the criminal proceedings and has not availed himself of any of the remedies available to him. The complainant could have appealed against the refusal to issue an arrest warrant against the officers assumed to be responsible for the acts, as the State Prosecutor’s Office responsible for the preliminary investigation subsequently did, which appeal is now being considered. In line with the Committee’s jurisprudence, the State party claims that the complainant has not availed himself of opportunities to exhaust all domestic remedies, and that he can no longer do so because the limitation period established for such remedies in domestic law has expired.10 4.7 The State party maintains that the fact that the complainant has not taken part in the criminal proceedings does not absolve him from the obligation to exhaust available domestic remedies and that, in accordance with the Committee’s jurisprudence, the complaint should be declared inadmissible if the complainant has not filed an appeal with the competent authority and has not explained why he did not do so.11 4.8 The State party maintains that the proceedings were not unreasonably prolonged, since the prosecution authorities conducted a series of procedures in response to the complaint, which also took account of the opinions issued by Guerrero State Human Rights Commission. 4.9 The State party highlights that, although, as the complainant indicates, his failure to take part was due to the threats he was receiving from officers of the municipal police, the complainant never informed the authorities that he was being threatened. The fact that he failed to report these events to any other authority, whether at the state level or within the prosecution service, prevented the authorities from being able to take measures to protect him and thus enable him to take part in the investigations and avail himself of the available remedies. The complainant could also have reported these facts to Guerrero State Human Rights Commission, which could have activated protection mechanisms under its jurisdiction. The complainant also failed to provide any evidence to explain why he did not inform the authorities of the threats received, and this failing prevented the Mexican authorities from taking the measures necessary to protect the complainant and allow him to continue with the proceedings and pursue the remedies he deemed necessary. 8 9 10 11 8 Jensen v. Denmark (CAT/C/32/D/202/2002), para. 6.3. CAT/C/43/D/307/2006/Rev.1. H.E-M. v. Canada (CAT/C/46/D/395/2009), para. 6.4. P.A.C. v. Australia (CAT/C/34/D/211/2002), para. 6.2. GE.21-13347