CCPR/C/127/D/2760/2016 State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 3 June 2016, the State party requested the Committee to declare the communication inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies in the investigation of the alleged disappearance of Mr. Moreno Pérez, since the investigations are still in progress. 4.2 In particular, the State party indicates that the preliminary investigation before the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic is still under way and that every effort is being made, in coordination with the local and federal authorities, to establish the whereabouts of the disappeared person, and that, in the criminal proceedings before the Criminal Court of Puerto Escondido, Oaxaca, even though a judgment has not yet been handed down in respect of the alleged perpetrators, the parties to the proceedings are actively providing and disclosing evidence. The State party submits that, while there has been no delay in the criminal proceedings themselves, the defendants have lodged various appeals and applications for amparo to challenge the decisions of the court, which have been resolved in a reasoned manner in accordance with the time limits established by domestic legislation, and that it is this process that has delayed the proceedings. The State party also submits that the authors, by lodging an appeal, will be able to reverse the judgment handed down if they consider it to be erroneous, and that amparo will also prove to be an adequate and effective remedy. 4.3 The State party argues that it is for its courts, not the Committee, to evaluate facts and evidence, as domestic proceedings are not arbitrary or tantamount to a denial of justice. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 12 September 2016, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility, in which they insisted on having made use of the domestic remedies available to them, which have been unreasonably prolonged and have failed to clarify the facts of the disappearance. 5.2 The authors recall that it is for the domestic courts to evaluate facts and evidence unless the proceedings are clearly arbitrary, constitute a denial of justice or breach the duty of independence and impartiality. In the present case, not only did serious irregularities occur, described by the supervisory authority as “serious liabilities”, but the court has failed to investigate the alleged defendants’ claims concerning the false statements that they were forced to make – statements that still constitute the only items of evidence supporting this version of the events surrounding the alleged homicide. The authors submit that the allegations of treatment contrary to article 7 should be promptly investigated and reiterate that information obtained through torture should be excluded from the evidence. 29 In particular, the authors recall that the Committee against Torture had found it regrettable that, in Mexico, “some courts continue to accept confessions that have apparently been obtained under duress or through torture”, and recommended that the State party adopt effective measures to “ensure that confessions obtained through torture or ill-treatment are not used as evidence in any proceedings whatsoever”.30 5.3 Furthermore, the authors maintain that the State party fails to provide specific and relevant information on the steps taken to investigate the facts as part of the preliminary investigation before the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, 31 as it makes no mention of the efforts that it is supposedly making in that connection. 5.4 Lastly, with regard to the State party’s argument that there has been no delay in the criminal proceedings, the authors recall that the proceedings began in January 2012 and that no progress has been made since that date. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 In its observations of 20 October 2016, the State party asked the Committee to find that it had not violated any of the articles of the Covenant. 29 30 31 GE.19-21673 Selyun v. Belarus (CCPR/C/115/D/2289/2013), paras. 7.2 and 7.3. CAT/C/MEX/CO/5-6, para. 15. Kadirić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (CCPR/C/115/D/2048/2011), para. 9.5. 7