disregarded the complaints of the detainees and even signed statements without having been present while they were taken, so that they were “incapable of guaranteeing the physical and mental integrity of the detainee.” Moreover, “[i]n cases in which a prosecutor was present, many deponents informed the [CVR] that instead of acting as a guarantor of their rights he or she was an authority who went unnoticed and, in many cases, endorsed these illegal practices.” Also, at the time of the arrest, “the victim or their family members were forced to sign the search records.” 433 The CVR also underscored: the questionable role played by forensic physicians. Most of the victims state that the forensic medical examinations that were performed by these medical professional were not thorough; in other words, they simply performed the medical examination as a mere formality […]. The unprofessional conduct of the forensic physicians has particularly serious consequences in cases of sexual abuse, because it condemns the crime to impunity. 434 320. In this regard, Nancy Elizabeth De la Cruz Chamilco, who “supervised and validated” the medical examination performed on Ms. J. (infra para. 327 and supra para. 93), declared that during her “professional career of 31 years as a forensic physician she ha[d] never experienced pressure or interference with [her] decisions as an expert witness; acting always as a medical professional, objective, impartial and respecting scientific truth in the justice administration system.” 435 This Court notes that the words of the witness do not deny the conclusions of the CVR and that, in any case, her intervention was subsequent to the medical examination performed on J., because she merely “supervised [administratively] and validated that the examination was appropriate.” 436 321. In general, the Court notes the similarities that exist between what the presumed victim testified at the domestic level, and the findings of the CVR. In this regard, the Court recalls that the CVR was created by the State (supra para. 54) and underscores that Peru even referred to the conclusions of this commission in its arguments regarding the description of the context that existed at the time of the facts. 437 Consequently, the similarities found are an important indication of what happened in the instant case. C.2.2) The statements by Ms. J. 322. In the instant case, it is recorded in the case file that, in her statement before the police on April 21, 1992 438 (supra para. 83 and footnote 112), and also in her preliminary statement on June 10, 439 15 440 and 19, 1992, 441 the presumed victim gave an account of the ill-treatment presumably 433 Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, volume VI, chapter 1.4, pp. 223, 241 and 252. 434 Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, volume VI, chapter 1.4, p. 224. 435 Affidavit prepared by witness Nancy Elizabeth De la Cruz Chamilco on May 8, 2013 (merits report, folio 1069). 436 Affidavit prepared by witness Nancy Elizabeth De la Cruz Chamilco on May 8, 2013 (merits report, folios 1068, 1070 and 1071). In this regard, the deponent indicated that “[w]hen signing the said forensic medicine certificate, the certification of the findings described is of a technical and administrative nature.” 437 See, for example, the answering brief (merits report, folios 397 and 398). 438 On that occasion Ms. J. stated that: they took [her] by the hair and they took [her] to the back of the building; they blindfolded [her], and they put [her] against the wall.” She also indicated that, “at the time of the arrest, [she] was beaten, sexually abused, in other words, touched all over.” Statement of Ms. J. of April 21, 1992 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 31, folio 3669 and 3671). 439 On that occasion Ms. J. stated that: they took [her] by the hair, pointed a gun at [her] and about 15 people entered dressed in civilian clothing, all of them armed; and as [she] had been injured by the glass that had fallen on her back, they threw [her] on the floor and immediately tied [her] hands behind [her] back, and blindfolded [her]; they hit [her] and took [her] to the back of the premises, threatening and insulting [her]. When they tied [her] up, one of the men, who was darkskinned and wore a yellow cap, hit [her] legs, touched her all over [her] body – patting [her] down according to him.” In addition, she indicated that “they used their radios and told [them] that they would make [them] disappear and were going to take [them] to a barracks.” She also stated that they then put her in a car which was “driving around all night until 6 a.m. when it stopped in front of the Police Station; all that time [she] had been blindfolded and tied up.” Preliminary statement of June 10, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 41, folio 3698). 93