CAT/C/65/D/778/2016 initiated by the authorities are those concerning their application to be recognized as parties to the prosecution, while no significant progress has been made in the investigation of the case, in particular with regard to the torture Mr. Yrusta allegedly endured before his death. In this respect, the complainants point to the failure to carry out the examinations that were requested in the light of the forensic medical report, which documented the following findings: (a) marks on the neck that were not consistent with the prison administration’s description of what was used for the hanging (“an object with elastic properties”); and (b) foreign objects in Mr. Yrusta’s anus that, according to witness statements from other inmates held in the punishment cells, were supplied by members of the provincial police force or prison staff.4 The complainants are of the view that the prosecutor and the judge responsible for the case received the forensic medical report but did not consider it until Mr. Yrusta’s family requested a clarification of the situation. The complainants claim that the family’s request was rejected by the judge and the prosecutor in order to hide the truth and conceal the negligence with which they had conducted the investigation. 5.3 The complainants note that, according to the State party, the right of the inhabitants of the Province of Santa Fe to have access to justice is ensured by means of legal aid centres. They are of the view that this right has not been respected, because those centres have refused on more than one occasion to take on cases involving institutional violence and because the State party has systematically denied the Provincial Public Defender standing in cases where he is requested to provide representation to victims intervening in proceedings as private criminal plaintiffs. In addition, the complainants question the existence of the agreements mentioned by the State party that apparently allow the legal aid centres run by the Province of Santa Fe to hire private lawyers in cases where the impartiality of persons providing legal aid on behalf of the provincial authorities could be called into question, such as when crimes committed by provincial officials are being investigated. The complainants claim that they have asked to see those agreements but have not received a satisfactory response. Lastly, the complainants add that what is important is not the identity of the lawyer representing them before the State party’s courts but their need to be recognized as plaintiffs and to exercise their right of access to justice. The complainants contend that, at the date they submitted their additional comments, they were still waiting to meet the lawyer whose services the provincial authorities had offered with a view to representing them in their request to appear as complainants, in accordance with the ruling of 23 April 2014 of the Santa Fe Criminal Court of Appeal. In that ruling, the Court stated that “the circumstances relating to the alleged irregularity and/or validity of the standing of the legal representative can in the present case be resolved by complying fully with the court order”. Nevertheless, on 4 June 2014, the Seventh Bench of the Santa Fe Criminal Investigation Court decided “not to grant the application to appear as private criminal plaintiff made by Estela Deolinda Yrusta, who is represented by Dr. Gabriel Ganon” on the grounds that “in accordance with article 67 II of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of Santa Fe, legal standing is granted to alleged victims of a criminal offence or their protected heirs, categories to which the prospective plaintiff, Estela Deolinda Yrusta, does not belong. Accordingly, in view of her lack of standing to act in the capacity claimed, her application must be rejected as inadmissible.” On 13 June 2014, the complainants lodged a further appeal, reiterating their request to join the proceedings as plaintiffs. On 16 June 2014, the appeal was admitted without suspensive effect and was referred to a higher court. On 30 June 2014, the complainants were notified of the composition of the court. On 14 November 2014, more than one year and a half after the complainants’ first request for recognition as parties to the prosecution, the Santa Fe Appeal Court denied the appeal filed by the Provincial Defender on their behalf. The Court, presided over by a single judge, held that, in application of articles 1, 2 and 21 of Act No. 13.014, the Provincial Defender did not have standing to represent the complainants in the Province of Santa Fe. It further held that “persons seeking recognition as private criminal plaintiffs must be provided with legal representation at government expense if they lack the financial resources needed to take part in a criminal trial ... but that it is not the responsibility of the Provincial Public Criminal Defence Service to provide such 4 GE.19-01524 Sixth Bench of the Criminal Investigation Court, Province of Santa Fe, case file No. 173-2013, pp. 569–571. 7