CAT/C/65/D/778/2016
3.4
The complainants also claim that the State party has violated article 11 of the
Convention, since it has not reviewed the arrangements for the custody and treatment of
persons that made it possible for Mr. Yrusta to be disappeared following his complaints of
torture. They further contend that the lack of effective judicial control over the rights and
interests of persons deprived of their liberty makes it possible for transfers and other
administrative measures or practices to be carried out in various provinces of the State party
in a manner that escapes public scrutiny, as in Mr. Yrusta’s case.
3.5
The complainants also consider that the State party has violated article 12 of the
Convention, in that, once the allegations of torture made by Mr. Yrusta and by them were
known, it did not launch, ex officio, the investigations required to guarantee the right to
truth and the prosecution of those responsible. This claim is supported by the fact that the
State party later disregarded Mr. Yrusta’s autopsy report, which recommended that an
investigation should be conducted into signs of torture and ill-treatment. These facts have
still not been duly investigated.
3.6
The complainants also claim that the State party has violated article 13 of the
Convention, since, despite their requests to the prison services, they did not have access to
an effective remedy through which to channel their complaints. In other words, the victim
was denied the opportunity to submit a complaint and, furthermore, there was no prospect
of any complaints made being dealt with impartially by the State party’s competent
authorities.
3.7
Lastly, the complainants claim that the refusal to grant their request for standing as
private criminal plaintiffs prevented them from gaining access to information relating to the
judicial proceedings initiated following the death of Mr. Yrusta, in violation of article 14 of
the Convention. The complainants further claim that the State party has violated their right
to ascertain the truth regarding the torture and other ill-treatment that ultimately resulted in
the death of Mr. Yrusta and has denied them the right to redress.
State party’s observations on admissibility and on the merits
4.1
On 21 June 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and
merits of the communication to the Committee and requested that the complaint should be
declared inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention or, in the event that it was
declared admissible, that it should be rejected on the merits.
4.2
The State party recalls that, under the Convention, domestic remedies must have
been exhausted in order for a complaint to be declared admissible. It considers that, in the
present case, the Committee’s intervention would clearly be premature, since the judicial
investigation initiated following the death of Mr. Yrusta is still ongoing, and it cannot be
argued that the proceedings have exceeded a reasonable period of time. In this connection,
the State party points out that judicial proceedings have been opened in the case entitled
Yrusta, Roberto Agustín re/his death before the Sixth Bench of the Santa Fe Criminal
Investigation Court. The Court is actively pursuing the case and has ordered a number of
measures aimed at gathering evidence to establish the circumstances of Mr. Yrusta’s death
and any criminal responsibility arising therefrom. 2 Consequently, until the judiciary issues a
ruling, it is impossible for either the State party or the Committee to determine whether Mr.
Yrusta was indeed subjected to torture, so it would be premature for the Committee to
adopt any kind of decision on the matter.
4.3
Regarding the allegations of torture of Mr. Yrusta relating to events that occurred in
Reverend Father Lucchese Prison Complex No. 1, the State party attaches a report from the
Córdoba Prison Service, which comes under the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights. The
report contains no complaints or other claims from Mr. Yrusta concerning ill-treatment or
torture of any kind. Moreover, it rejects the allegations that Mr. Yrusta was placed in
buzones, or punishment cells, and that he was subjected to practices such as the dry
submarine treatment, beatings, threats or other ill-treatment, and argues that Mr. Yrusta
himself had asked to be placed in isolation because he was experiencing problems with
2
GE.19-01524
The State party refers to the decision of the Human Rights Committee in T.K. v. France
(CCPR/C/37/D/220/1987), para. 8.3.
3