The case of Jacqueline Castillo Ortiz v. Mexico. The decision of the UN Committee against Torture dated April 17, 2025. Message No. 1114/2021. The author claimed that the State party had violated the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment against her husband by failing to conduct a thorough, impartial and prompt investigation into the cases of torture, as well as as a result of his conviction, including on the basis of confessions obtained under torture. The Committee found a violation of certain provisions of the Convention.
Legal positions of the UN Committee against Torture: A State party has no right to evade its obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by claiming that a case is being considered by the national authorities when it is obvious that the investigation is not prompt within the meaning of article 12 of the Convention (paragraph 8.4 of the Decision).
The Committee recalls that the general meaning of the provisions of article 15 of the Convention follows from the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture and therefore implies the obligation of any State party to verify whether statements used in proceedings within its jurisdiction have been obtained through torture (paragraph 8.5 of the Decision).
The UN Committee against Torture's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: it notes, in particular, the allegations of the author's spouse, which have not been refuted by the State party, that he reported being tortured in April 2001 and that a preliminary investigation was initiated only in April 2002, and as of April 2025 it is still open.. Despite the investigative measures taken by the State party, more than 20 years have passed since the State party had reasonable grounds to believe that an act of torture had been committed, and the investigation was still ongoing without any justification for excessive delay (paragraph 8.4 of the Decision).
The Committee considered that the State party had an obligation to verify the truth of the author's spouse's claims that his statement had been written under torture. By failing to promptly and impartially verify the content of the allegations of torture, the State party violated its obligations under article 15 of the Convention, especially given that more than 20 years have passed since the author first claimed that the complaint to the prosecutor's office was written as a result of torture (paragraph 8.5 of the Decision).
Conclusions of the UN Committee against Torture: The facts presented testified to a violation of articles 12 and 15 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, considered in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention, in relation to the author's spouse.