Decision; Subjects: MEXICO, TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL TREATMENT; [CAT: UNO-Antifolterkonvention, Übereinkommen gegen Folter; Convention contre la torture; Convenzione contro la tortura]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.25-07750 (E) 170625 180625
Committee against Torture
Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the
Convention, concerning communication No. 1114/2021*, **
Communication submitted by:
Jacqueline Castillo Ortiz (represented by the
Mexican League for the Defence of Human
Rights)
Alleged victim:
Manuel Valenzuela Valdez
State Party:
Mexico
Date of complaint:
19 March 2021 (initial submission)
Date of adoption of decision:
17 April 2025
Subject matter:
Torture and lack of investigation; use in court of
confessions obtained under duress
Procedural issue:
Admissibility ratione temporis; exhaustion of
local remedies
Substantive issues:
Torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment; duty to ensure that
competent authorities conduct a prompt and
impartial investigation; prohibition against using
confessions obtained under torture
Articles of the Convention:
1 (1), 4 (1), 12 and 15
1.1
The complainant is Jacqueline Castillo Ortiz, the wife of Manuel Valenzuela Valdez.
The complainant claims that Mr. Valenzuela Valdez, a Mexican national born in 1970, is the
victim of violations by the State Party of articles 1 (1), 4 (1), 12 and 15. The complainant is
represented by the Mexican League for the Defence of Human Rights.
1.2
The State Party has made the declaration pursuant to article 22 (1) of the Convention,
effective from 15 March 2002.
* Adopted by the Committee at its eighty-second session (7 April–2 May 2025).
** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:
Todd Buchwald, Jorge Contesse, Erdogan Iscan, Peter Vedel Kessing, Liu Huawen, Maeda Naoko,
Ana Racu, Abderrazak Rouwane and Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov. Pursuant to rule 109, read in
conjunction with rule 15, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, and paragraph 10 of the guidelines
on the independence and impartiality of members of the human rights treaty bodies (the Addis Ababa
guidelines), Claude Heller did not participate in the examination of the communication.
United Nations
CAT/C/82/D/1114/2021
Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment
Distr.: General
12 June 2025
English
Original: Spanish
CAT/C/82/D/1114/2021
2
GE.25-07750
Factual background
Torture and ill-treatment
2.1
On 17 April 2001, Mr. Valenzuela Valdez and his brother were travelling in a pickup
truck when they were intercepted and blocked in by two vehicles. Five people carrying
handguns got out of the vehicles, which were not displaying any official insignia. The
individuals, who did not identify themselves, approached the vehicle Mr. Valenzuela Valdez
and his brother were in. One of the individuals shot Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s brother in the
right shoulder. Mr. Valenzuela Valdez was carrying a gun because his brother’s secretary
and driver had informed him that unknown persons had been following them and prowling
around his brother’s offices and home. Mr. Valenzuela Valdez thought it was a kidnapping
or a robbery and shot at the individuals. Three were killed and another was seriously injured.
2.2
Mr. Valenzuela Valdez and his brother drove off in the direction of his brother’s house.
On the way, they were stopped by a police patrol. Despite getting out of the vehicle with his
hands up, Mr. Valenzuela Valdez was beaten, and both brothers were taken to the offices of
the investigative police force. At the police facilities, Mr. Valenzuela Valdez was insulted,
pulled by his handcuffs, pushed and shoved against the wall.
2.3
At around 7.10 p.m. on 17 April 2001, Mr. Valenzuela Valdez was examined by a
doctor. He was then taken to a basement where he was blindfolded and told to undress. Plastic
bags were placed over his head to suffocate him, and he was made to lie down while liquid
was poured over his face, which was covered with a cloth. He was held down and forced to
ingest the liquid, causing him to choke and vomit. Throughout, he was interrogated about his
activities and asked whether he had any involvement with the National People’s Army.
Mr. Valenzuela Valdez replied that he did not and explained that he was on his way home
from a vacation in Acapulco. The interrogation continued, with electric shocks applied all
over his body, including on his earlobes, chest, penis, testicles, hands and feet. He was asked
if he was involved with the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (Zapatista National
Liberation Army) (EZLN) and when he denied the accusation, his head was shoved into a
toilet bowl or dirty bucket and he was accused of being a drug trafficker. Mr. Valenzuela
Valdez could not bear any more such treatment and began to invent information to make the
torture stop. The torture continued; his aggressors beat him around the ears and exerted
pressure on his eyes. He lost track of time and suffered a loss of sensation until he was
allowed to rest.
2.4
Some time later, Mr. Valenzuela Valdez heard in a police radio transmission that his
brother had died and that his wife and daughter had been located. Mr. Valenzuela Valdez
then agreed to confess to drug trafficking and gave a statement to the public prosecutor at
2.30 a.m. on 18 April 2001. No public defender was present and he did not receive legal
assistance.1 He was later taken to a press conference, having been threatened with reprisals
against his family if he spoke.2 He was also left without food for two days.
Domestic remedies
2.5
On 20 April 2001, Mr. Valenzuela Valdez made a preliminary statement, in which he
declared that the statement he had given to the Public Prosecution Service had, in part, been
extracted under physical pressure, including torture.3 Mr. Valenzuela Valdez also described
the torture he had suffered.
2.6
On 25 April 2001, by order of Judge No. 8 of Criminal Court No. 1, the forensic
medical service of the State Counsel General’s Office issued an expert report with the aim of
ascertaining the circumstances of the injuries suffered by Mr. Valenzuela Valdez. According
to the expert report, Mr. Valenzuela Valdez had abrasions on his tongue, arms, hands, legs,
1 The complainant argues that even though Mr. Valenzuela Valdez was not convicted of drug
trafficking, the statement he made under torture was introduced as evidence in the judicial
proceedings (see para. 2.10 below).
2 The complainant provides no further information on the press conference.
3 The complainant does not specify which parts of the statement are considered to have been given
under physical pressure, including torture.
CAT/C/82/D/1114/2021
GE.25-07750
3
pubic region and penis and bruising on his right arm and abdomen. The report concluded that
the injuries were not life-threatening and would take no more than 15 days to heal. He
therefore did not require hospitalization.
2.7
According to the complainant, on 25 April 2001, Mr. Valenzuela Valdez also filed a
complaint before the Querétaro State Human Rights Commission concerning the alleged
illegal detention, torture and degrading and inhuman treatment of himself and his brother.4
As a result of the complaint, in September 2001, the Querétaro State Human Rights
Commission issued a recommendation.5 In 2017, when requested to provide a copy, the
Commission claimed that no such recommendation existed.
2.8
According to the complainant, on 12 October 2001, the judge in the case filed an ex
officio complaint in respect of the torture suffered by Mr. Valenzuela Valdez and his brother.
The complaint was not pursued because on 22 October 2001, the Public Prosecution Service
determined that it had not been filed by the victims. However, on 27 December 2001, the
judge filed another complaint concerning acts possibly constituting torture, which led to the
launch of preliminary investigation No. AESP/27/2002.6 On 8 September 2003, the Public
Prosecution Service, through its Specialized Unit for the Investigation of Crimes Committed
by Public Servants, decided not to bring proceedings. On 22 July 2020, the prosecutor in the
case again decided not to bring proceedings. These decisions were challenged.
2.9
On 17 June 2008, Criminal Court of First Instance No. 8 of the Judicial District of
Querétaro convicted Mr. Valenzuela Valdez and his brother of three counts of murder and
two counts of attempted murder. The penalty imposed included damages to be paid jointly
and severally. The complainant alleges that Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s confession, which was
obtained under torture, was used in his trial and conviction. According to the judgment, which
refers to the statement containing his confession, it is not proven that the physical assaults
against him were carried out with the aim of causing him to confess or to make the statement
he subsequently made.7 On 1 October 2009, the Criminal Chamber of the High Court of
Justice of the State of Querétaro modified the judgment, setting aside the conviction of
Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s late brother. The High Court also sentenced Mr. Valenzuela Valdez
to payment of damages and upheld the other points of the judgment on appeal.
2.10
On 8 August 2019, pursuant to application for direct amparo No. 1344/2017, the
judgment of 1 October 2009 was set aside, the first instance judgment was revoked due to
procedural irregularities and the case was referred back to the lower court. The judge in the
case was instructed to: (a) investigate Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s allegations of torture;
(b) order the relevant psychological and medical examinations, in accordance with the
Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol), and the gathering of
any evidence necessary to establish the facts; (c) inform Mr. Valenzuela Valdez of the effects
and consequences of refusing any of the examinations deemed necessary pursuant to the
Istanbul Protocol; and (d) order the official experts to validate the relevant reports, thereby
rectifying the procedural irregularity so that the reports could be evaluated by the duly
appointed judge. It was argued, among other considerations, that despite Mr. Valenzuela
Valdez’s having recounted before the judge specific details of the alleged physical torture
and his having stated that he confessed to put an end to his suffering and protect his physical
integrity, there is no record of any investigation of his claims. It was emphasized that if the
4 The complaint is not on file. However, the file does contain a request from the State Human Rights
Commission, dated 21 April 2001, for the Director of the San José el Alto Social Rehabilitation
Centre to provide a copy of the medical certificates issued in respect of Mr. Valenzuela Valdez and
his brother upon admission, in order to follow up on a complaint filed by the brother. There is also a
request from the Commission, dated 23 April 2001, in which it asks the same Director to allow it to
identify the inmates named José and Manuel Valenzuela Valdez and thereby enable it to follow up on
the complaint. The complainant provides no further information on the complaint filed by
Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s brother.
5 The complainant does not give any indication of the content of the recommendation.
6 The complainant does not indicate the date on which preliminary investigation No. AESP/27/2002
was opened.
7 Criminal Court of First Instance No. 8 of the Judicial District of Querétaro, judgment in criminal case
No. 109/2001, 17 June 2008, p. 25.
CAT/C/82/D/1114/2021
4
GE.25-07750
claims of torture were found to be true, that finding would have an effect on the violation of
Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s human rights, in that it would have an impact on the assessment of
some of the evidence obtained by the public prosecutor during Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s
detention, including his statement. With regard to the statement Mr. Valenzuela Valdez gave
to the public prosecutor, the procedural irregularity had an effect on the judgment being
challenged, since the Criminal Chamber of the High Court of Justice upheld the evidentiary
value that the first instance judge accorded to the statement, namely that it was considered to
be a confession.
Complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that the State Party has violated the rights of Mr. Valenzuela
Valdez under articles 1 (1), 4 (1), 12 and 15 of the Convention.
3.2
The complainant alleges that the State Party has violated article 4 (1) of the
Convention owing to the fact that the authority responsible for investigating and prosecuting
the offences has closed the investigation on more than one occasion, citing a lack of proof
that the torture occurred and a failure to substantiate responsibility for the offence, thereby
violating Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s right to security of person.
3.3
The complainant argues that the State Party has violated article 12 of the Convention
by failing to conduct a thorough, impartial and prompt investigation, thus violating the right
to legal certainty and justice.
3.4
The complainant alleges that the State Party has violated article 15 of the Convention,
since Mr. Valenzuela Valdez was tried and sentenced using the statement, obtained under
torture, in which he confessed.
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
The State Party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits on
8 December 2022. It explained that on 23 May 2001, Mr. Valenzuela Valdez and his brother
filed an application for amparo, registered under the consecutive number 612/2001, in respect
of their detention order. In the application, Mr. Valenzuela Valdez and his brother stated that,
at the time of their arrest, they were beaten by the agents who apprehended them, and that
Mr. Valenzuela Valdez was tortured by these same agents for the purpose of extracting a
confession. On 24 January 2002, a final judgment was issued in which the application for
amparo was granted, annulling the detention order issued on 21 April 2001. In its place,
another order was issued. In an order issued on 30 August 2002, the proceedings were
declared to be fully concluded.
4.2
With regard to the judicial proceedings against Mr. Valenzuela Valdez, the State Party
states that the criminal case was launched on 17 April 2001. A public defender was appointed
and Mr. Valenzuela Valdez made a preliminary statement before the court on 20 April 2001,
in which he partially retracted the statement he had given to the public prosecutor and alleged
that he had been beaten and tortured by the arresting officers. After several stages of judicial
proceedings, Mr. Valenzuela Valdez lodged an application for direct amparo No. 1344/2017.
In a decision issued on 8 August 2019, Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s application for amparo was
granted. The Criminal Chamber set aside the judgment on appeal and issued a new one
revoking the first instance judgment against Mr. Valenzuela Valdez and referring the case
back to the lower court. The judge in the case was instructed to gather the records of
Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s hearing conducted by the former State Counsel General’s Office
with a view to investigating Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s claims of torture. The judge was also
instructed to order the relevant Istanbul Protocol-compliant psychological and medical
examinations and to gather whatever evidence might be needed in order to establish the facts
of Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s allegations of torture. Depending on the results, the judge in the
case will determine whether or not to accept Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s retraction of his
confession. Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s argument was declared well founded in respect of the
failure to order an investigation into his allegations that the investigative police subjected
him to physical torture, beatings and threats to force him into making a confession to the
Public Prosecution Service, which he reported in his preliminary statement before the judge
overseeing the criminal case.
CAT/C/82/D/1114/2021
GE.25-07750
5
4.3
With regard to preliminary investigation No. AESP/27/2002, the State Party states
that it was launched on 8 April 2002 following Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s claim that when
they arrested him, the investigative police officers did not identify themselves and that they
hit him at the police facilities. On 8 September 2003, the Public Prosecution Service official
responsible for coordinating the investigation of crimes committed by public servants
submitted a proposal for the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings. On 22 June 2020,
the appeal filed by Mr. Valenzuela Valdez was resolved and the case was returned for further
processing. At the time of submission of the State Party’s observations, preliminary
investigation No. AESP/27/2002 remained pending, and no resolution had yet been reached.
4.4
On the other hand, on 4 July 2018, investigation file No. CI/QRO/21986/2018 was
opened with the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Offences of Torture
of the former Counsel General’s Office in response to a written submission from
Mr. Valenzuela Valdez, in which he states that he was subjected to physical and
psychological violence at the time of his detention. The investigation was concluded after the
due process judge in the judicial district of Querétaro decided, on 16 August 2021, not to
bring criminal proceedings. The decision was taken on the ground that the facts were already
being examined in preliminary investigation No. AESP/27/2002 and the same facts cannot
be the subject of two investigations.
4.5
The State Party explains that on 5 November 2018, the Querétaro Ombudsman’s
Office opened file No. DDH/542/2018 on the basis of Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s allegations
regarding irregularities in investigation file No. CI/QRO/21986/2018. With the file, a request
for collaboration was sent to the Querétaro State Attorney General’s Office asking it to
prepare an expert report of the type relevant in possible cases of torture, which would be
entered as evidence in the investigation file. The State Party alleges that on 22 January 2021,
Mr. Valenzuela Valdez explicitly refused to comply with the requirements of the Istanbul
Protocol. Nevertheless, on 23 June 2021, a forensic psychological report was prepared, and
on 10 September 2021, a medical report was issued, both of which were Istanbul
Protocol-compliant. File No. DDH/542/2018 remains at the investigation stage, and evidence
and data continue to be gathered with a view to issuing the corresponding finding in
accordance with the law.
4.6
The State Party argues that the communication should be declared inadmissible
because Mr. Valenzuela Valdez has not exhausted domestic remedies. It maintains that, since
the investigations have not yet been completed, Mr. Valenzuela Valdez has not yet exhausted
the remedies provided for in domestic law. The State Party emphasizes that application for
direct amparo No. 1344/2017 was granted and the case was referred back to the lower court
owing to procedural irregularities and the fact that the related preliminary investigation has
not yet been concluded. Preliminary investigation No. AESP/27/2002 also remains ongoing.
As part of the investigation, various steps have been taken to determine whether offences of
torture were committed; these include taking statements from witnesses, Mr. Valenzuela
Valdez and the alleged perpetrators and the drafting of various reports, including an expert
report.8
4.7
On the merits, the State Party claims that it did not violate Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s
rights to life, liberty and security of person. It claims that, as investigations are continuing
into whether offences of torture were committed, no conclusion can be reached until the
competent authorities of the State Party complete their investigations and determine both
whether there are reasonable indications that torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
occurred and whether objective and subjective elements exist to demonstrate probable
responsibility. The burden of proof therefore lies with the complainant, who must present an
arguable case, in particular by submitting substantiated arguments showing that
8 The State Party lists several investigative steps that have been taken but does not indicate when they
were taken. The elements of the investigation for which the State Party indicates a date are: (a) a
report submitted by means of an official letter, dated 3 November 2021, signed by the President of the
Querétaro Ombudsman’s Office; (b) an expert report, dated 25 April 2022, signed by an expert
medical professional assigned to the Expert Services Unit of the State Attorney General’s Office; and
(c) a response to a request for collaboration, in an official letter dated 22 July 2022, signed by the
Private Secretary to the Guanajuato State Attorney General.
CAT/C/82/D/1114/2021
6
GE.25-07750
Mr. Valenzuela Valdez has been the victim of torture or cruel treatment.9 The State Party
alleges that it has taken the appropriate and relevant steps and actions to identify and punish
the perpetrators of the torture allegedly committed against Mr. Valenzuela Valdez.
Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the
merits
5.1
In her comments of 9 March 2023, the complainant argues that the criminal
proceedings relating to the judgment concerning application for direct amparo
No. 1344/2017 remain at the pretrial phase because preliminary investigation
No. AESP/27/2002 into allegations of torture is ongoing.10 The complainant alleges that there
has been an unwarranted delay in determining whether or not Mr. Valenzuela Valdez is a
victim of torture, owing to the fact that an effective investigation has not been conducted.
The complainant claims that the application of domestic remedies has been unreasonably
prolonged and that it is unlikely that these remedies will bring positive changes to
Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s situation.
5.2
With regard to the involvement of the Querétaro Ombudsman’s Office, she explains
that on 13 December 2022, the Office issued a request for acceptance of responsibility,
having found that the former Querétaro State Counsel General’s Office, which has since
become the Querétaro State Attorney General’s Office, had committed violations of the
human rights to legality, legal certainty and access to justice. The request for acceptance of
responsibility contains no mention of acts of torture, despite the fact that the findings of the
Istanbul Protocol-compliant forensic psychological examinations of Mr. Valenzuela Valdez
demonstrate a probable link to torture and are consistent with his claims thereof. According
to the request, on 4 January 2019, Mr. Valenzuela Valdez agreed, before the due process
judge and the prosecutor, to undergo Istanbul Protocol-compliant examinations, provided
that they were performed by an authority other than the Querétaro State Attorney General’s
Office. On 14 May 2021, in a detailed report signed by him and the assistant deputy inspector
of the Querétaro Ombudsman’s Office, Mr. Valenzuela Valdez again confirmed his interest
in Istanbul Protocol-compliant examinations and his intention to undergo them. The
complainant argues that the request for acceptance of responsibility is inadequate because it
offers no opinion on whether or not Mr. Valenzuela Valdez is a victim of torture.
5.3
The complainant points out that there is a conflict of interest, in that the Attorney
General’s Office bears principal responsibility for the violation of Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s
right to personal integrity because, as the prosecuting party, it was responsible for the
imprisonment of Mr. Valenzuela Valdez and his brother.11
Additional observations by the parties
Submission from the State Party
6.
On 7 April 2025, the State Party indicated that preliminary investigation
No. AESP/27/2002 remained ongoing and the investigation was still open.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
7.1
Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must
decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has
ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same
9 The State Party refers to E.L.G. v. Spain (CAT/C/68/D/818/2017), para. 8.4.
10 The complainant does not indicate the date on which preliminary investigation No. AESP/27/2002
began, but the State Party gives the date as 8 April 2002. Similarly, the complainant does not indicate
the date on which the criminal proceedings against Mr. Valenzuela Valdez began, but the State Party
gives the date as 17 April 2001.
11 The complainant submitted additional comments on 26 February 2025, in which she emphasizes the
unjustified prolongation of domestic remedies and the torture suffered by Mr. Valenzuela Valdez.
CAT/C/82/D/1114/2021
GE.25-07750
7
matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international
investigation or settlement.
7.2
Although not raised by the parties, the Committee notes that the alleged torture and
ill-treatment of Mr. Valenzuela Valdez occurred prior to the State Party having made the
declaration under article 22 (1) of the Convention. The Committee recalls that a State Party’s
obligations under the Convention apply from the date on which the Convention entered into
force for it. The Committee may consider alleged violations of the Convention which
occurred prior to a State Party’s recognition of its competence under article 22 if the effects
of those violations continue after the declaration has been made and if the effects constitute
in themselves a violation of the Convention. A continuing violation must be interpreted as an
affirmation, after the formulation of the declaration, by act or by clear implication, of the
previous violations of the State Party.12 The Committee notes that the State Party made the
declaration under article 22 of the Convention on 15 March 2002. Although the alleged
torture that is the subject of the complaint occurred before that date, in April 2001,
Mr. Valenzuela Valdez was convicted in 2008. His sentence was partially modified in 2009
and revoked by means of application for direct amparo No. 1344/2017 in 2019. The
Committee also notes that the investigations into the claims of torture have not yet concluded.
Consequently, the State Party’s failure to comply with its obligations to investigate
Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s claims continued thereafter, and the statement he made as a result
of torture was allegedly introduced as evidence after the State Party had recognized the
competence of the Committee under article 22 of the Convention. In these circumstances, the
Committee is not precluded ratione temporis from considering the present complaint in
relation to articles 12 and 15 of the Convention, in conjunction with article 1.
7.3
The Committee recalls that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply
if the application of such remedies is unreasonably prolonged or unlikely to bring effective
relief. 13 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State Party claims that the
investigations have not concluded. The Committee also notes that the complainant alleges
that on 25 April 2001 the forensic medical service of the State Attorney General’s Office
issued an expert report, in compliance with an order made by Judge No. 8 of Criminal Court
No. 1. According to the expert report, Mr. Valenzuela Valdez was found to have
non-life-threatening injuries to several parts of his body. The Committee notes that the State
Party states that on 8 April 2002, preliminary investigation No. AESP/27/2002 was launched
following Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s claim that he had been beaten by police officers and that
on 8 August 2019 – that is, more than 18 years later – Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s application
for direct amparo was granted and an investigation was ordered into his claims of torture.
The Committee also notes that, according to the information provided by the parties,
preliminary investigation No. AESP/27/2002 remains pending, more than 20 years after it
was launched. Under these circumstances, the Committee considers that domestic remedies
have been excessively and unreasonably prolonged. The Committee therefore finds that it is
not precluded from considering the present complaint under article 22 (5) (b) of the
Convention.
7.4
Lastly, the Committee notes the complainant’s claim that the State Party has not
fulfilled its obligations under article 4 (1) of the Convention. However, the Committee
considers that the complainant has failed to substantiate this claim for the purpose of
admissibility and finds it inadmissible under article 22 (2) of the Convention.
7.5
The Committee considers the complainant’s claims under articles 1, 12 and 15 of the
Convention to be sufficiently substantiated for the purpose of admissibility and thus declares
them admissible and proceeds to its consideration of the merits.
Consideration of the merits
8.1
The Committee has examined the complaint in the light of all the information
submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention.
12 Gerasimov v. Kazakhstan (CAT/C/48/D/433/2010), para. 11.2.
13 A.E. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/14/D/24/1995), para. 4; Evloev v. Kazakhstan (CAT/C/51/D/441/2010),
para. 8.6; and Hoyos Henao v. Mexico (CAT/C/75/D/893/2018), para. 8.3.
CAT/C/82/D/1114/2021
8
GE.25-07750
8.2
The Committee recalls that under article 12 of the Convention, States Parties have an
obligation to initiate an ex officio investigation whenever there are reasonable grounds to
believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, whatever the origin
of the suspicion. Article 12 also requires that the investigation be conducted promptly and
impartially. The Committee observes that it is essential that the investigation be prompt both
to prevent the victim from continuing to be subjected to the acts and because the physical
traces of torture generally disappear in a short period of time due to the manner in which it is
committed.14
8.3
The Committee takes note of the complainant’s claim that the investigation to
determine whether Mr. Valenzuela Valdez was a victim of torture has been unreasonably
delayed due to the lack of an effective investigation. The Committee also takes note of the
complainant’s claim that the forensic medical service of the State Counsel General’s Office,
in compliance with an order made on 25 April 2001 by Judge No. 8 of Criminal Court No. 1,
issued an expert report describing the injuries suffered by Mr. Valenzuela Valdez. The
Committee also notes that, in his preliminary statement on 20 April 2001, Mr. Valenzuela
Valdez described the torture he had suffered. The Committee notes that, according to the
State Party, preliminary investigation No. AESP/27/2002 was launched on 8 April 2002
following Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s claim that when they arrested him, the investigative
police officers did not identify themselves and that they hit him at the police facilities. The
Committee notes the State Party’s claim that investigations to establish whether acts of
torture were committed are ongoing and acknowledges that various steps have been taken to
establish the facts. The Committee also notes that the State Party alleges that in January 2021,
Mr. Valenzuela Valdez refused Istanbul Protocol-compliant examinations, that the
complainant alleges that in May 2021, he consented to such examinations, and that, according
to the request for acceptance of responsibility issued by the Querétaro Ombudsman’s Office,
in January 2019 he consented to such examinations, provided that they were performed by
an authority other than the Querétaro State Attorney General’s Office. The Committee notes
that in 2021, Mr. Valenzuela Valdez underwent an Istanbul Protocol-compliant examination.
8.4
The Committee notes, in particular, the complainant’s claims, which have not been
refuted by the State Party, that Mr. Valenzuela Valdez made allegations of torture in his
preliminary statement in April 2001 and that preliminary investigation No. AESP/27/2002
was not launched until April 2002 but, as of April 2025, remains open. The Committee also
notes that, despite the fact that the State Party has shown that it has taken various investigative
steps, more than 20 years have elapsed since the State Party first had reasonable grounds to
believe that an act of torture had been committed, and the investigation is still ongoing,
without any justification for the excessive delay. The Committee considers that the State
Party cannot evade its responsibilities under the Convention by arguing that the national
authorities are pursuing the matter, when it is clear that the investigation has not been prompt
within the meaning of article 12 of the Convention. In the light of the foregoing, the
Committee concludes that the State Party has not fulfilled its obligations under article 12 of
the Convention.
8.5
With regard to article 15, the Committee takes note of the complainant’s claim that
Mr. Valenzuela Valdez was tried and sentenced on the basis of his confession, despite the
fact that in 2001 he claimed that he had been tortured and that his statement to the Public
Prosecution Service had been given, in part, under physical pressure (see paras. 2.5 and 2.10
above). The Committee notes that the State Party affirms that Mr. Valenzuela Valdez stated
in 2001 that he had been tortured by police officers to cause him to confess (see para. 4.2
above). The Committee also notes that the judgment handed down in 2008, which refers to
his statement to the Public Prosecution Service, states that it cannot be proven that the
physical assaults against him were carried out with the aim of causing him to confess or to
make the statement he subsequently made. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the
State Party states that, as a result of the direct amparo action brought by Mr. Valenzuela
Valdez, in 2019 the criminal proceedings were referred back to the lower court and the judge
in the case was instructed, inter alia, to investigate Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s claims of torture
14 Blanco Abad v. Spain (CAT/C/20/D/59/1996), para. 8.2; and Hoyos Henao v. Mexico, para. 9.7. See
also CAT/C/MEX/CO/7, para. 25.
CAT/C/82/D/1114/2021
GE.25-07750
9
and to determine, based on the results of the investigation, whether or not to accept the
retraction of his confession. The Committee recalls that the general nature of the provisions
of article 15 derives from the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture and therefore
implies an obligation for any State Party to verify that statements included in proceedings
under its jurisdiction were not obtained through torture.15 The Committee considers that the
State Party had an obligation to verify whether there was any truth to Mr. Valenzuela
Valdez’s allegations that his statement had been obtained under torture. By failing to
investigate Mr. Valenzuela Valdez’s allegations in a prompt and impartial manner, and by
using in the judicial proceedings against him the statement he had given to the public
prosecutor, the State Party failed to comply with its obligations under article 15 of the
Convention, especially considering that more than 20 years have passed since Mr. Valenzuela
Valdez first alleged that his statement had been made as a result of torture. In this regard, the
Committee recalls its concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Mexico, in
which it urged the State Party to ensure that, when it is alleged that a statement has been
obtained through torture, the allegation is investigated immediately and the burden of proof
falls not on the victim but on the State.16
9.
The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, decides that the facts
before it disclose a violation by the State Party of articles 12 and 15 of the Convention, read
in conjunction with article 1, in respect of Mr. Valenzuela Valdez.
10.
The Committee urges the State Party to: (a) bring to an end the ongoing investigation
into the events in question with a view to prosecuting anyone who might have been
responsible for the treatment inflicted on Mr. Valenzuela Valdez and to punishing anyone
found guilty with penalties commensurate with the gravity of the violations; (b) award full
reparation, including fair and adequate compensation, to Mr. Valenzuela Valdez and provide
him with as full a rehabilitation as possible; and (c) take the steps necessary to provide
guarantees of non-repetition in connection with the facts of the present communication.
11.
Pursuant to rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure, the Committee requests the State
Party to inform it, within 90 days of the date of transmittal of the present decision, of the
steps in follow-up to the above observations.
15 P.E. v. France (CAT/C/29/D/193/2001), para. 6.3; Ktiti v. Morocco (CAT/C/46/D/419/2010),
para. 8.8; A.N. v. Burundi (CAT/C/60/D/612/2014), para. 7.10; and Bani v. Morocco
(CAT/C/75/D/999/2020), para. 7.10.
16 CAT/C/MEX/CO/7, para. 21.