CCPR/C/125/D/2657/2015 Thus, incommunicado detention cannot be applied to minors under the age of 16 years. It must be authorized by a judicial authority on the basis of a reasoned decision. It can be ordered only under two exceptional circumstances (rather than the previous four: an urgent need to prevent serious consequences that might endanger a person’s life, liberty or physical integrity and an urgent need for investigative judges to act immediately to avoid seriously compromising the criminal process). Judicial authorization of incommunicado detention does not automatically lead to the restriction of the detainee’s communication rights; rather, the amended version of article 527 establishes that the judge may, exceptionally, deprive a detainee of some of these rights if warranted by the circumstances of the case. Lastly, the possible restrictions of a person’s rights are minor in nature, as they simply affect the right to appoint a lawyer of one’s choice, the right to communicate with persons with whom a detainee would normally be entitled to speak (with the exception of judicial authorities, the Public Prosecution Service and a forensic doctor), the right to speak with a lawyer in private and the right to have access to documents related to the case (with the exception of those required in order to challenge the legality of the detention). Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 On 23 August 2016, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations on the merits. 7.2 Regarding the State party’s argument that the author was treated appropriately during his time in police custody and that all the statements were taken in keeping with legal requirements, the author submits that he was never provided with the records of the statements or the detention log (in which all movements in and out of the cells and all measures and proceedings should be recorded). The author repeats that the interrogations to which he is referring are those that were conducted illegally without a lawyer present, not the interviews referred to by the State party in which statements were taken and for which a designated lawyer was indeed called in. 7.3 In addition, the author points out that the fact that he was charged, detained and later convicted is no excuse for the fact that he was continuously tortured. He recalls that the prohibition of torture is absolute and that, as stipulated in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture (art. 2 (2)). 7.4 Concerning the procedures related to the complaint of torture, the author reiterates that they were wholly insufficient, incomplete and superficial and that it is therefore uncertain whether the facts of the case were investigated promptly and thoroughly. The author notes that, notwithstanding the enumeration by the State party of the dates and times of the forensic doctor’s examinations, none of the reports mentions the start and end times, in violation of the provisions of the Ministerial Order of 16 September 1997.19 Thus, the medical reports prepared by Dr. Syra Amalia Peña López fail to meet the minimum standards required for incommunicado detention and are utterly insufficient and incomplete, exhibiting a disregard for how difficult it is to prove the commission of acts of torture during incommunicado detention. 7.5 As for the State party’s argument that the author did not tell the forensic doctor about any of the ill-treatment and did not wish to be examined before he was brought before a judge, the author reiterates that this was precisely because he was in police facilities and fully aware that, after the medical examination, he would remain there, in the hands of the same officers who were torturing him. The author recalls that, as soon as he was brought before a judge, he recounted what had happened to him. 19 GE.19-13559 warrant proceedings and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty. The author provided a copy of the Ministerial Order of 16 September 1997 on the adoption of the protocol for use by forensic doctors when examining detainees. 9