The case is Ronald James Wooden v. Mexico. The decision of the Committee against Torture of July 23, 2021. Communication No. 759/2016.
In 2016, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Mexico.
As follows from the text of the Decision, the author claimed a violation of article 1, considered in conjunction with paragraph 1 of article 2 of the Convention. He claimed that the treatment he had been subjected to during his detention, displacement and several hours of detention could be classified as torture in accordance with article 1 of the Convention. The author also claimed that the State violated its obligation to prevent torture by allowing his detention without an arrest warrant and despite the fact that he was not detained at the scene of the crime, without his registration in the register of detainees, without judicial control over his detention and without the possibility of examination and medical assistance. The author drew attention to the fact that the State party violated article 11 of the Convention, since during his detention at the police station, the authorities did not apply the Istanbul Protocol or any other guidance in accordance with international standards on methods of preventing, detecting and documenting torture, and the staff of the Prosecutor's Office, who received various complaints filed by the author, At the time of submission of the communication, no relevant orders had been issued. The author claimed that the State party had violated articles 12 and 13 of the Convention by failing to ensure that competent and impartial authorities conducted a prompt, immediate and thorough investigation of the alleged crimes, and by failing to provide these authorities with an opportunity to promptly and impartially consider his complaint. The author also claimed a violation of article 14 of the Convention to the extent that he was deprived of a prompt, effective and impartial judicial remedy to establish the facts, prosecute and punish those responsible for the use of torture, as well as the opportunity to receive adequate compensation and rehabilitation (paragraphs 3.1 - 3.7 of the Decision).
Legal positions of the Committee: The Committee called on States to take effective measures to ensure that persons deprived of their liberty from the moment of their detention in practice enjoy, in accordance with international standards, all basic legal guarantees, in particular: the right to immediate assistance from a lawyer, the right to be informed of the reasons for their detention and the right for its registration (paragraph 10.4 of the Decision).
The Committee recalls that article 12 of the Convention requires a prompt and impartial investigation in all cases where there are sufficient grounds to believe that torture has been used (paragraph 10.7 of the Decision).
The Committee recalls that the investigation itself is not sufficient to demonstrate that the State party has fulfilled its obligations under article 12 of the Convention, and that the investigation must be prompt and impartial. In addition, he recalls that promptness is necessary both to ensure that the victim is not subjected to further torture, and because, as a rule, physical traces of torture disappear quickly (paragraph 10.8 of the Decision).
The Committee recalls its general comment No. 3 (2012), where it stressed the need for States parties to provide means for the fullest possible rehabilitation of a person who has been harmed as a result of a violation of the Convention, which should be comprehensive and include medical and psychological assistance, as well as legal and social services (paragraph 10.10 of the Decision).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: it took note of the author's claim that during his detention, arrest and detention, police officers repeatedly struck him with weapons, fists and boots, stepped on his genitals and ribs, pointed weapons at him and threatened him with death and disappearance. The Committee also noted that the author had provided numerous medical reports confirming his injuries such as fractured ribs, erectile dysfunction, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and lack of muscle strength in both arms. The effects of some of these injuries persisted for at least two years after the events described.... The Committee concluded that the author's allegations of beatings to which he was subjected during detention and displacement, as well as the circumstances in which he was detained without medical care and water, constituted elements leading to a conclusion of a violation of article 1 of the Convention (paragraph 10.3 of the Decision).
The Committee noted that the author was detained without a warrant and had no opportunity to communicate with his wife or an independent lawyer.... [D]The State party has not fulfilled its obligation under article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention to take effective measures to prevent acts of torture (paragraph 10.4 of the Decision).
The Committee also took note of the author's argument of a violation of article 11 of the Convention, since during his detention the State party did not apply the Istanbul Protocol or any other guidance consistent with international standards on methods of preventing, detecting and documenting torture. The Committee referred to its concluding observations on Mexico's seventh periodic report, in which it urged the State to ensure a systematic review of detention and interrogation procedures in accordance with article 11 of the Convention. In the absence of information from the State party that could demonstrate that the conditions of the author's detention were subject to the State party's supervision, the Committee concluded that the State party had violated article 11 of the Convention (paragraph 10.5 of the Decision).
The Committee noted that despite the author's visible injuries noted in the medical reports, no immediate investigation of the alleged facts was initiated (paragraph 10.7 of the Decision).
The Committee stressed that after filing the complaint on 29 April 2013, the author appeared before the Prosecutor's Office for the first time on 18 April 2016. After the decision of the District Court for Criminal Cases and Amparo Issues of July 1, 2016, an employee of the Federal Prosecutor's Office did not investigate the fact of torture. The investigation by the Prosecutor General's Office was resumed three years after the events described, without any justification for the excessive delay in the investigation or timely provision of information to the author on the progress of its conduct (paragraph 10.8 of the Decision).
In the light of the failure to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation of the author's allegations, the Committee concluded that the State party had failed to comply with its obligations under article 14 of the Convention (paragraph 10.10 of the Decision).
The Committee's conclusions: the facts presented indicated a violation of article 1; article 2, paragraph 1; articles 11; 12; 13 and 14 of the Convention.