CAT/C/55/D/500/2012 15. On 27 June 2014, the Committee decided to uphold its request for interim measures, calling on the State party to provide Ramiro López with the necessary medical care to prevent irreparable damage. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 16.1 Before considering any complaint contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 16.2 The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 16.3 The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that domestic remedies have not been exhausted because the Attorney-General’s Office and the National Human Rights Commission have reopened investigations into torture in the present case. The Committee also notes that the complainants have indicated that such procedures are ineffective, given that they have been unreasonably prolonged and are inadequate, and that, in the case of the National Human Rights Commissi on, the recommendations are non-binding. 16.4 The Committee recalls that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply if their application has been or would be unreasonably prolonged or would be unlikely to bring effective relief. 11 In the present case, the Committee notes that six years have passed since the Mexican authorities were made aware of the alleged acts of torture, without any notable advances in the investigation of the case. Although the Prosecution Service had the information at its disposal to conduct a prompt and effective investigation in order to identify and prosecute the alleged perpetrators, responsibility for the investigation was instead transferred to the military courts and the case was subsequently closed, only to be reopened by the Attorney-General’s Office following the submission of the present complaint. 16.5 The Committee further notes that, since the opening of new proceedings in June 2012, the Attorney-General’s Office has failed to make progress in promptly and effectively investigating the case and in bringing criminal proceedings for the reported acts of torture. The State party has offered no explanation for the significant delay, nor reasonable arguments on the potential effectiveness of the new investigation, particularly in the light of the limited and questionable procedures undertaken and the very rare convictions for torture in the State party. The investigations conducted by the National Human Rights Commission, which were reopened in June 2010, have seemingly not made progress, nor, due to the very nature of the Commission ’s recommendations, do they constitute an effective and enforceable remedy in terms of the exhaustion of domestic remedies. 16.6 In these circumstances, the Committee considers that dome stic remedies have been unreasonably prolonged and are ineffective. Accordingly, the Committee is not precluded by the requirements of article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention from considering the communication on the merits. 16.7 The Committee thus proceeds to its consideration of the merits of the allegations submitted by the complainants under articles 2, read in conjunction with 1; 16, read in conjunction with 2; and 12 to 15 of the Convention. __________________ 11 GE.15-17782 See, inter alia, communications Nos. 24/1995, A.E. v. Switzerland, Decision adopted on 2 May 1995, para. 4; and 441/2010, Evloev v. Kazakhstan, Decision adopted on 5 November 2013, para. 8.6. 15/19