complaint, which were on no account prosecutable by a minor-offence procedure. Lastly, he claimed that the failure to investigate constituted a breach of article 12 of the Convention. 2.6 The Provincial High Court dismissed the appeal on 17 June 1998. According to the judgement, counsel for the author, at the oral proceedings on 25 November 1997, had merely requested that the complaint filed by his client should be joined to that before the court. The judge had acceded to that request, suspended the proceedings and set a new date for their resumption. The author had failed to appear for those proceedings without due reason. As he had thus failed to support his complaint at the appointed time, the judge had had no alternative but to reject it in the absence of evidence for the prosecution. The judgement concluded that the judicial proceedings had been terminated owing to the party's inaction. 2.7 The author rejects the arguments set forth in the judgement. He claims that he did attend the proceedings, although he arrived a few minutes late, and that the facts reported in his complaint should have been investigated automatically even if none of the parties had raised them in the proceedings, since they constituted circumstantial evidence of criminal conduct (a complaint having been filed and evidence submitted). 2.8 On 3 July 1998, the author filed an amparo application with the Constitutional Court, alleging violations of the following provisions: article 15 of the Constitution (right to physical integrity) and the corresponding articles of the Convention; the provision of article 24 of the Constitution concerning the right to an appropriate legal procedure, since the facts reported could not be dealt with in minor-offence proceedings but in ordinary criminal proceedings for more serious offences, which would not be prosecuted by an investigating judge; the provision of article 24 of the Constitution concerning the right to adversarial proceedings, since, despite the fact that the judgement by the Provincial High Court indicated that the Office of the Public Prosecutor objected to the appeal and requested confirmation of the initial judgement, the author had never been informed of the objection filed by the prosecutor and was thus denied the opportunity to challenge it; the jurisprudence of the Committee against Torture in respect of article 13 of the Convention. (1) 2.9 The Constitutional Court declared the appeal inadmissible in a resolution of 19 January 2000, stating, inter alia, that the contested judgements were constitutionally sound. It further stated that the author's procedural conduct had been the decisive factor because he had simply requested that his complaint against the officers of the Local Police should be joined to the subject matter of the proceedings, but without bringing charges against

Select target paragraph3