24 significant conclusions and who pointed out the need to conduct an otorhinolaryngological examination, which was subsequently made on April 26, 1988.69 111. It is important to emphasize that in those cases where alleged torture or mistreatment have been claimed, the time elapsed till the performance of the pertinent medical examinations is essential in order to unquestionably determine the existence of damage, specially when there are no witnesses other than the perpetrators and the victims themselves, and consequently, the evidence may be scarce. Thus, it may be concluded that in order for an investigation regarding facts involving torture to be effective, the same must be promptly conducted. 112. Being a timely investigation essential for the determination of the facts, the Court considers that the medical examination of Mr. Bueno-Alves should have been immediate. 113. On the other hand, the Court notes that in the substantiation of case No. 24.079, the judicial authorities did not investigate the facts diligently and the procedural burden fell for the most part on Mr. Bueno-Alves. The role that the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Judge played was notoriously passive. The judge only received the requests for evidence filed by the applicant, some of which have not been upheld, and the Public Prosecutor’s Office has not made any efforts to gather all the pieces of evidence which might be useful to establish the truth of the facts. Likewise, no investigations were conducted regarding the claims made by the victim reporting blows to the stomach and deprivation of medicines. On the other hand, those persons identified as responsible for the blows inflicted upon Mr. Bueno-Alves were not included in the early stages of the criminal process and instead they were included long after the commencement of the process; and despite the fact that Mr. Bueno-Alves reported the presence of a third person while he was being beaten on the ears and the stomach, no efforts were made in order to identify such person. To sum up, the criminal process did not contribute to identify or punish any person, it almost entirely depended on the activities of the victim, and it did not provide reparation for the damages caused thereto. 114. By the same token, the Court notes that, pursuant to the allegations of the Commission, and the record of the case filed with the Court, the judicial action commenced in April 1988 and ended with the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation on April 15, 1997. That is to say, it was pending in court for almost nine years. 115. Taking into account the acknowledgement made by the State and the criteria established by the Court as regards the principle of the reasonable time limit,70 the Court endorses the opinion of the Commission that Mr. Bueno-Alves was not heard within a reasonable time, as set forth in Article 8(1) of the American Convention. 116. Finally, the Court notes that there is no evidence which may prove that the State has given notice to Mr. Bueno-Alves, as a foreign detainee, of his right to communicate with a consular officer of his country of origin to get the assistance which is contemplated in Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relationships. A foreign detainee, upon being arrested and before rendering his first statement before the authorities, must be notified of his right to contact a consular officer of his country of origin and inform him that he is under the custody of the State. The Court has pointed out that the consul may assist 69 70 Cf. Record of appendixes to the application, Volume I, Appendix 8, folio 442. Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 14, para. 149: Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 16, para. 196, and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 43, para. 289.