CCPR/C/123/D/2767/2016 6.4 The State party submits that, in order to determine a violation of the author’s right to freedom of expression, it must be shown that the authorities colluded to use the judiciary against her, which has not been proven in the present case. The State party adds that the burden of proof rests with the author to demonstrate such collusion, but that she has presented only one piece of evidence, which was acquired unlawfully, namely the recordings of the conversations between the Governor of the State of Puebla and Mr. Nacif. In any event, such evidence is inadmissible, since it has no probative value because the persons involved have not acknowledged the veracity of the conversations and no further evidence has been produced to establish their authenticity. Furthermore, the provenance of the recordings and the manner of their acquisition are not known. 6.5 The State party maintains that the author’s detention was justified by the existence of a complaint concerning offences under the criminal legislation of the State of Puebla at the time of the events. Accordingly, the prosecution service opened a preliminary investigation against the author, and her arrest was ordered. The State party adds that the arresting police officers were properly identified and that they informed the author of the charges against her. Furthermore, she was allowed to make a telephone call. 6.6 The State party submits that the author’s arrest and detention were lawful, necessary and proportionate. One day after her arrest, the author was presented before a judge, who ordered her release on bail. Her detention was therefore judicially reviewed. The State party submits that the author’s allegations regarding how she was treated during her transfer are a separate matter and the subject of criminal investigations. 6.7 The State party maintains that the author’s detention alone does not constitute a violation of her right to freedom of expression and that it has not been proven that her detention was intended to undermine the freedom of expression. 6.8 As regards the author’s allegations concerning the failure to notify her of the investigations against her, the State party points out that neither the Constitution nor the criminal law of Mexico requires the prosecution service to notify individuals that they are the subject of an investigation for an offence. 6.9 As to the effectiveness of the ongoing criminal investigations and, in particular, the time elapsed before the opening of the investigations and the arrest of a suspect, the State party points out that the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means and not an obligation of result; consequently, passage of time alone is not a measure against which the manner in which the national authorities conduct an investigation can be assessed. The State party adds that the author’s initial submission was not transmitted until May 2016 and would therefore have had no impact on the investigations and arrest referred to therein. In any event, the author had available to her the remedy of amparo to put forward her claims of undue delays. 6.10 Lastly, the State party points out that the criminal investigations into the facts alleged by the author were thorough and impartial, since they were conducted by an independent body that was not involved in the alleged acts, namely, the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 In her comments of 4 June 2017, the author maintains that the investigations that have been ongoing since March 2006 have been delayed without justification and that it was only after the submission of the present communication to the Committee on 13 October 2014, which was announced in a public interview with the author on that date, that proceedings were brought against the two officers charged, although no new evidence had been adduced or investigations conducted since 2007.18 18 GE.18-14178 The author cites Ramírez et al. v. Mexico (CAT/C/55/D/500/2012), in which the Committee against Torture pointed out the existence of an unjustified delay in investigations six years after the commission of acts of torture; those investigations were relaunched only after the communication had been submitted to the Committee. 9