CAT/C/75 page 44 the offence the time taken for a victim’s physical injuries to heal. Furthermore, article 2 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, which Mexico has also ratified, refers only to the infliction of physical or mental pain or suffering, without specifying that they have to be severe. The Federal District Attorney-General said during his meeting with the Committee members that the courts considered torture to have occurred only if there were serious injuries. 210. Impunity affects administrative as well as criminal investigations. The few cases that result in penalties tend to be those in which a State or the National Human Rights Commission has previously issued a recommendation. Details of the responses to such recommendations in some of the cases the Committee members learned of during their visit are given below. 211. According to information supplied by the Office of the Tamaulipas State Attorney-General in connection with the 21 recommendations it received from the State Human Rights Commission in 1999, 2000 and early 2001 concerning instances of beatings, bodily harm and torture, the action taken in response was as follows: in 11 cases, the culprits were suspended for between 3 and 30 days; in one case an application for reconsideration was lodged on the grounds that the facts had not been duly proven; in one case it was determined that there were no grounds for initiating administrative proceedings; in one case the only thing that could be proved was arbitrary detention; one case was closed because the individual concerned did not work at the institution; in one case torture was not proven; two cases were still pending; and in three cases the Commission’s recommendations had not been accepted. 212. The information received concerning the State of Jalisco indicates that no public servant had been sentenced for torture up to August 2001, and only exceptionally had anyone been committed for trial despite recommendations by the State Human Rights Commission, some of which had not even been accepted. 213. In its seventh annual report (October 1999-September 2000), the Federal District Human Rights Commission stated that the 15 recommendations47concerning torture that it had issued since its inception involved 54 public servants. Of those, 27 had been sacked, 1 disbarred and 2 suspended without pay. A further five had been let off completely, and two more provisionally. Initial investigations had been launched in all 54 cases: 27 of the cases were sent for trial; inquiries had been inconclusive in 3 cases; they had been ordered to be conducted in secret in 7 cases; and no criminal proceedings had been launched in 17 cases. Of the 27 public servants committed for trial, 2 had been granted relief from imprisonment, 3 had won protection against their arrest warrants and one arrest warrant had been rescinded; 1 had been sent for trial and was in pre-trial detention; 2 had had the arrest warrants for torture against them annulled, and were due to be detained for abuse of authority; the respective arrest warrants had not been executed in 7 cases; 6 public servants had been sentenced and 5 committed for trial for torture but convicted of abuse of authority,48 1 being sentenced to six years and nine months in prison and the remainder to four years and seven months. 214. Of the six sentenced for torture, one was awarded direct relief against the sentence and the corresponding arrest warrant was annulled; one was sentenced to nine years and three months in prison but had managed to elude justice; one was acquitted; while two were sentenced to three years and one month in prison and a 215-day fine, their sentences were suspended; one was sentenced to five years and three months in prison and disbarred from employment in the public service for five years.49