Prosecution Service did not mention this either. 467 Consequently, the Court finds that it has not been proved that Ms. J.’s injuries were caused because she tried to escape at the time of the arrest. 332. The Court notes that the medical examination was performed before Ms. J. had made a statement and indicated for the first time the facts that presumably occurred during her initial arrest. Once she had made a statement, the domestic authorities did not order any additional medical examination. Therefore, since the medical examination of April 18, 1992, did not include 468 (supra para. 93), the alleged any type of examination relating to offenses of a sexual nature sexual violence was never examined medically. In addition, neither did the domestic authorities carry out a psychological examination of the presumed victim. 469 This examination would have been particularly important in the instant case where some of the ill-treatment described by Ms. J. does not leave physical traces. 333. The Court considers that the evidence obtained during the medical examination plays a crucial role during the investigations conducted against detainees and in cases when the latter allege ill-treatment. 470 In this regard, it is extremely difficult for the victim to substantiate allegations of ill-treatment while in police custody, if he was isolated from the exterior world, without access to doctors, lawyers, family or friends who could provide support and gather the necessary evidence. 471 Therefore, the judicial authorities have the duty to ensure the rights of the detainee, and this entails obtaining and ensuring all the evidence that may prove the acts of torture, including medical examinations. 472 In addition, it is important to emphasize that, in cases in which there are allegations of supposed torture or ill-treatment, the time that has passed before the corresponding medical appraisals are made is determinant in order to conclude without doubt the existence of the harm, especially when there are no witnesses other than the perpetrators and the victims themselves and, consequently, the evidence may be very limited. This reveals that, for an investigation into acts of torture to be effective, it must be conducted promptly. 473 Therefore, the failure to perform a medical examination on a person who was in the State’s custody or the performance of this examination without complying with the applicable standards, cannot be used to cast doubts on the truth of the presumed victim’s allegations of ill-treatment 474 (infra paras. 341 on April 28, 1992 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 37, folios 3687 and 3689); charges brought by the Public Prosecution Service on January 8, 1993 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 45, folios 3747 to 3763), and criminal complaint of April 28, 1992 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 36, folio 3682). 467 Cf. Statement made by Magda Victoria Atto Mendives during the public hearing held in this case. 468 According to witness Nancy Elizabeth De la Cruz Chamilco, the examination conducted was “Forensic Medicine examination to determine the physical integrity, old or recent injuries; it was not the examination relating to sexual honor or sexual integrity, which is how examinations relating to offenses against sexual liberty are referred to,” because the latter was not requested. Cf. Affidavit prepared by witness Nancy Elizabeth De la Cruz Chamilco on May 8, 2013 (merits report, folios 1070 and 1071). 469 In this regard, the Istanbul Protocol establishes that “[a] psychological appraisal of the alleged torture victims is always necessary and may be part of the physical examination, or where there are no physical signs, may be performed by itself.” Istanbul Protocol, para. 104. 470 Cf. ECHR, Korobov v. Ukraine, no. 39598/03, § 69, 21 July 2011, and Salmanoğlu and Polattaş v. Turkey, no. 15828/03, § 79, 17 March 2009. 471 Cf. ECHR, Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 97 Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, and Eldar Imanov and Azhdar Imanov v. Russia, no. 6887/02, § 113, 16 December 2010. 472 Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra, para. 92, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra, para. 135. See also, Istanbul Protocol, para. 77; ECHR, Eldar Imanov and Azhdar Imanov v. Russia, no. 6887/02, § 113, 16 December 2010. 473 Cf. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 111, and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra, para. 93. In this regard, the Istanbul Protocol establishes that “[t]he timeliness of such medical examination is particularly important. A medical examination should be undertaken regardless of the length of time since the torture, but if it is alleged to have happened within the past six weeks, such an examination should be arranged urgently before acute signs fade.” Istanbul Protocol, para. 104. 474 Similarly, see Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 112; ECHR, Tekín v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 41, 98