CAT/C/55/D/500/2012 lawyer and an independent medical examination. They point out that the first expert medical evaluation was not performed until they had been detained for six days and was entrusted to a doctor who took one hour to examine all four of them. They were subsequently ordered to serve 40 days of preventive custody, during which time they remained in the same military facilities, leaving them exposed to further torture. 3.3 The complainants claim a violation of article 16, read in conjunction with article 2 of the Convention, inasmuch as they were thrown to the ground and beaten during their arrest and transfer, which amounts to an unnecessary and disproportionate use of force given that none of the complainants was armed or resisted. Moreover, while in preventive custody, the complainants were bound hand and foot at night, gagged and locked up during sleeping hours and prevented from going to the toilet. 3.4 The complainants allege that the State party violated articles 12 and 13 of the Convention by failing to ensure that competent and impartial authorities conducted a prompt investigation of the acts of torture, and by preventing them from filing a complaint of torture before an ordinary court and having competent authorities conduct a prompt and impartial investigation of their allegations. 3.5 The complainants state that, even though they submitted a complaint of torture to the Prosecution Service and, later, in court, along with a detailed description of the acts of torture, including when and where they were committed, no prompt and impartial investigation or independent medical examination was conducted, in violation of article 12 of the Convention. Moreover, the preliminary investigation was transferred to military courts, despite which, after more than two years, no member of the army has been prosecuted for the alleged torture, no evidence has been taken and the complainants have not been called to testify, with the trial remaining at the pre investigation stage. The complainants add that both they and their relatives were prevented from filing complaints of torture with a competent and impart ial authority. According to the Committee and other international case law, military courts are not be competent to hear cases of serious human rights violations, particularly when the victims are civilians. 3.6 The complainants claim a violation of article 14 as they were denied access to a prompt, effective and impartial judicial remedy to establish the facts, prosecute and punish those responsible for the acts of torture and to provide adequate compensation and rehabilitation. 3.7 The complainants maintain that, even though their statements of 17 June 2009 were obtained through torture while they were blindfolded, the criminal court judge whom they informed did not dismiss the statements as evidence during the trial, allowing them to be cited as grounds for the issuance of a preventive custody order. The complainants therefore assert that the State party has breached its obligation under article 15 of the Convention. 3.8 By way of redress, the complainants request that the State party promptly, impartially and thoroughly investigate the facts, prosecute and punish those responsible with sentences that are commensurate with the seriousness of the acts and provide fair and adequate reparation to the victims, including adequate compensation and the necessary rehabilitation. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 6 June 2012, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the complaint, drawing attention to the constitutional reform of 2011, which incorporated the international human rights treaties ratified by Mexico and restricted the scope of military courts in cases of human rights violations against the civilian population. It pointed out that, in a judgement of 12 July 2012, the Supreme Court 8/19 GE.15-17782