CAT/C/55/D/500/2012
the house in Rosarito and to possessing the weapons found inside. They put plastic
bags on their heads again, after which Orlando Santaolaya and Ramiro Ramírez lost
consciousness and had to be revived by an army doctor.
2.7 That day and in the same barracks, the soldiers presented the complainants to the
press as a “gang of kidnappers” and were photographed with weapons that had
supposedly been found. After the press conference, the complainants were led to a
room, where they were joined by about 10 soldiers who started to beat and interrogate
them again. The soldiers told them that, the following day, a public prosecu tor would
come to take statements from them and that they would have to admit to the
kidnapping and to the possession of weapons. When they refused, the soldiers hit them
and began to rip out their toenails. In order to stop the torture, the complainants
eventually agreed to confess to the public prosecutor the following day.
2.8 Also on 16 June, a doctor from the Ministry of Defence examined the
complainants, noting some minor injuries but conclud ed that the detainees showed no
signs of torture. On 31 July 2009, the same doctor conducted a second examination, in
which he noted the need for Ramiro López to undergo ear, nose and throat
examinations and for Ramiro Ramírez to have his jaw X -rayed. The medical report did
not, however, mention any possible ill-treatment.
2.9 On 17 June 2009, a public prosecutor arrived at the barracks to take statements.
The complainants signed their statement in front of the prosecutor, blindfolded and
without the presence of a lawyer of their choice. Ramiro López refused to conf ess to
participating in criminal activities and described the treatment that he had received in
detention to the prosecutor, who did not, however, show any reaction. Once the
complainants had signed, the prosecutor left the barracks and they remained in
military custody.
2.10 That same day, an expert from the Attorney-General’s Office examined Ramiro
López and produced a report in which he noted several injuries, including a burst
eardrum. On 21 June 2009, a medical examination of the complainants described clear
physical injuries and recommended that a proper medical evaluation should be
conducted. It was recommended that Ramiro Ramírez should undergo a special
maxillofacial examination and that Ramiro López should undergo an ear, nose and
throat examination as he had a burst eardrum.
2.11 The complainants were held incommunicado at the barracks for four days,
gagged with tape and bound hand and foot during the night. They were given no food
or water, and not allowed to go to the toilet. They also continued to be beaten and
were forced to read out sentences dictated by the soldiers into a tape recorder so that
the agents could fabricate evidence against them.
2.12 On 19 June 2009, the public prosecutor tasked with the preliminary investigation
requested that the complainants should be held in preventive custody (arraigo), 1 to be
served in the same barracks where they were detained. On 20 June 2009, the Second
Federal Criminal Court specializing in searches, preventive custody and interception
of communications ordered that the complainants should be held in preventive custo dy
until 30 July 2009 in the designated barracks and that they should remain at the
disposal of the Prosecution Service.
2.13 On 20 June 2009, relatives of Ramiro López were able to visit him for the first
time, in the presence of army personnel. They noticed evidence of injuries to his face
__________________
1
4/19
Article 16 of the Constitution states that: “When dealing with organized crime, the judicial
authority, at the request of the Prosecution Service, may order that a person be held in preventive
custody […], if such detention is necessary for the succ ess of the investigation or for the protection
of persons or property, or if there is a well-founded risk that the defendant will abscond from
justice. […] [T]he total period of preventive custody may not, however, exceed 80 days. ”
GE.15-17782