57. Neither do the petitioner’s claims indicate that the judge in charge of proceedings N 24519 and who ordered his arrest acted in an illegal or clearly abusive fashion or exceeded the limits of reasonable discretion in the performance of his duties as a magistrate. 58. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the petitioner’s allegations regarding his alleged illegal arrest, even if proven true, do not constitute a violation of the Convention, particularly of Article 7 thereof, as required by Articles 47(b) of the Convention and 41(b) of the Commission’s Regulations. On the contrary, in the Commission’s opinion, those allegations are manifestly groundless, in accordance with Articles 47(c) of the Convention and 41(c) of the Commission’s Regulations. Regarding the alleged torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment inflicted on the petitioner (Convention, Article 5(2) 59. The petitioner claims that after his arrest, “at approximately one o’clock in the morning [on April 6, 1988], in the place where he was being held, the same officer who had arrested him applied blows with a cupped hand over both ears, an attack that was then repeated by another person.” 60. It should be noted that the petitioner has also claimed that during his arrest, his police guards “punched him in the stomach” but that “no evidence was given [...] of the results of such blows.” 61. According to the information contained in the case file, the petitioner’s torture allegations were addressed by criminal proceedings N 24079, brought before Investigating Court N 13, Secretariat N 140, against the police officers who supposedly perpetrated the punishable acts: RenJes Derecho, Horacio Soto, and Norberto Cdido Ruiz. The judge issued an order for them to be placed in preventive custody, which was not carried out, and this was addressed by the ruling of February 21, 1995, in proceedings N 32989 brought by the petitioner. 62. Proceedings N 24079, “for maltreatment,” was the legal recourse available to the petitioner after his allegations about the mistreatment he supposedly suffered while under arrest at the police building. These proceedings also analyzed the petitioner’s claims about the alleged disappearance of the medical report drawn up by the Federal Penitentiary Service which, he maintains, contained evidence of the torture inflicted on him. 63. The Commission notes that it is not clear that proceedings N 24079 addressed all the petitioner’s torture allegations, since the ruling in the case solely refers to the violence carried out against the petitioner’s ears and hearing apparatus. In other words, the ruling makes no mention of the alleged blows to the stomach or to the deliberate denial of the medication needed to combat the ulcer pains from which the petitioner suffered. 64. The Commission also notes that the State’s replies to the Commission have not specifically addressed these allegations made by the petitioner. 65. The Commission concludes that, if these allegations are proven true, this aspect of the case meets the requirement of constituting prima facie rights violations, as set forth in Articles 47.b of the Convention and 41.b of the Commission’s Regulations. Consequently, it declares the case admissible in this regard. Regarding the alleged absence of judicial guarantees and resources for substantiating the petitioner’s claims under argentine law 9