CCPR/C/123/D/2767/2016 the complexity of the case. The author adds that, given the inaction of the prosecution service, she alone has repeatedly sought to move forward the only proceedings open against one of the judicial officials. 5.2 With regard to the failure to exhaust the remedy of amparo in respect of the constitutionality of the criminal provisions of the State of Puebla defining the offences of defamation and calumny, the author submits that this extraordinary remedy would have been ineffective in her case, since an application for amparo would have led to a suspension of the main proceedings against her while the question of the constitutionality of those legal provisions was decided, 15 thereby prolonging the main proceedings and increasing the risk of further attacks against the author during her pretrial detention. The remedy that at that time afforded the author the best protection was an appeal against the detention order. Furthermore, the author filed several applications for a declaration of lack of jurisdiction. The author thus submits that she has exhausted the ordinary, appropriate and available remedies. 5.3 The author further submits that an amparo application against the arrest warrant would not have been appropriate, since the warrant had already been executed and the Constitution provides that an application for amparo cannot be filed in respect of “violations that have already been committed”. 16 She adds, in this connection, that she could not lodge an application for amparo before her detention, since she was never notified of the existence of a preliminary investigation against her. The author points out that there is no specific procedure for restoring a person’s liberty or for repairing the harm caused by unlawful or arbitrary detention. 5.4 The author points out that, during his mission to Mexico in 2014, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment described as “generalized” the use of sexual violence as a form of torture, mainly against women detainees, and the prevailing impunity in such cases. 17 5.5 The author submits that the investigations conducted by the Supreme Court of Mexico and the National Human Rights Commission are not binding judicial procedures. Furthermore, as no criminal proceedings have been concluded, there is no res judicata. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 In its observations of 24 March 2017, the State party reiterates its arguments on the inadmissibility of the communication. It insists that the author should have lodged a direct amparo application against the provisions establishing the offences of defamation and calumny and an indirect amparo application against “the official act that resulted in the arrest warrant for the author”. 6.2 The State party submits that the power of investigation vested in the Supreme Court of Mexico at the time of the events constituted a judicial remedy for constitutional review. 6.3 The State party maintains that the communication has become moot, since it has addressed the specific situation raised therein by repealing, on 23 February 2011, the articles of the Social Protection Code for the Free and Sovereign State of Puebla criminalizing defamation and calumny. The offences were also removed from the Criminal Code of the State of Quintana Roo. According to the State party, the fact that the two offences remain in the criminal codes of other states does not constitute a violation of the Covenant as far as the present communication is concerned. The State party adds that steps have also been taken to remedy the general situation raised by the present communication. In this connection, on 5 July 2010, the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Offences Committed against the Freedom of Expression was established with the task of coordinating the investigation and prosecution of offences against journalists. Furthermore, in June 2012, the Mechanism for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders and Journalists, which includes civil society representatives, was established with a mandate to protect journalists in the exercise of their profession. 15 16 17 8 Article 73 (X) of the Amparo Act (repealed). Ibid. See A/HRC/28/68/Add.3, paras. 28 and 35. GE.18-14178