CAT/C/55/D/500/2012 Consideration of the merits 17.1 The Committee has considered the complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 17.2 Before considering the allegations made by the complainants under the articles of the Convention invoked, the Committee must determine whether the acts to which the complainants were subjected constitute acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 17.3 The Committee takes note of the complainants’ allegations that during their detention and preventive custody they were beaten repeatedly with weapons; plastic bags were placed over their heads; they were given electric shocks; their toenails were pulled out; and they were threatened with death. The complainants submit tha t such treatment was inflicted on them by members of the military in an attempt to force a confession. The Committee notes that, although the State party has offered a differing account regarding the reasons for detention, it has not contested the treatmen t described by the complainants. The Committee considers that the facts reveal acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 17.4 The Committee considers that the complainants’ allegations regarding the blows inflicted during their detention and transfer, and regarding the set of circumstances in which they were detained for long periods, handcuffed, gagged and blindfolded, without being allowed to go to the toilet, also disclose a violation of article 1, and does not, therefore, deem it necessary to consider separately the claims of a violation of article 16 of the Convention. 17.5 The complainants allege a violation of article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with article 1, because the State party failed in its obligation to p revent acts of torture during their detention and preventive custody. The Committee notes that the complainants were arrested without warrant by military personnel and remained in incommunicado detention for four days, under military guard, unable to contact their families and without access to an independent lawyer or proper medical treatment. During this period, they were questioned by the military under torture, paraded in front of the press and subsequently forced to sign statements blindfolded before the public prosecutor, who attended the military facilities on the day following their arrest. The Committee also notes that, despite the injuries found by the medical examinations and the statements made by Ramiro López before the Prosecution Service on 17 June 2009 and by the complainants before the criminal courts in August 2009, the prosecution and judicial authorities ruled that the complainants should remain in detention and subsequently preventive custody in the same military facilities where they had reportedly been tortured. It notes that the decision to place the complainants in preventive custody was based on the written confessions, without a hearing of the complainants. The Committee reiterates its concern regarding the provision of preventive custody and, in particular, the lack of monitoring, the lack of proportionality in its duration, its implementation — sometimes — in military facilities, the prevalence of complaints of torture by persons in preventive custody and the fact that it has been conducive to the admission into evidence of confessions presumably obtained under torture. 12 In the light of these circumstances, the Committee considers that the State party has failed to take effective measures to prevent acts of torture as required by article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. 17.6 Regarding articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee takes note of the complainants’ claims that no prompt and adequate investigation into the acts of torture __________________ 12 16/19 CAT/C/MEX/CO/5-6, para. 11. GE.15-17782