15 against him, [who] laugh[ed] while he was being beaten, but who was not actively involved.”32 He could not identify the person who also beat him under orders from Mr. Derecho. 74. From the evidence provided and the acknowledgment made by the State regarding the facts of the instant case (supra para. 26), the Court held as proven the fact that Mr. Bueno-Alves was beaten on the ears33 and the stomach, insulted because of his nationality and deprived of his medication for the ulcer by police agents, while he was arrested and kept under their custody,34 with the aim of having him declare against Pérez-Galindo,35 who was also under arrest.36 75. After the facts mentioned have been proven in the foregoing paragraphs, the Court will now determine if said events constitute acts of torture. Before doing so, the Court highlights that the State did not challenge the fact that the Commission and the 32 Cf. Certificate of ratification of the statement rendered regarding a line-up on March 14, 1989, before Magistrate’s Court 13 (record of appendixes to the complaint, Volume I, Appendix 8, folio 508). 33 The medical report issued by doctor José Bello on April 26, 1988, established that there was “a 2mmdiameter perforation of the eardrum membrane” resulting in a “hearing deficit” that was “in the process of healing.” This diagnosis was confirmed through several subsequent medical examinations. On May 13, 1998, two forensic doctors concluded that there was a “perforation of the right eardrum with hypoacusia located in tones 4000 and 8000.” A new medical report was issued on December 7, 1988, which confirmed the existence of “perceptive hypoacusia in the right ear with typical signs of hypoacusia.” The reports of April 13 and May 13, 1988, were supplemented by a new medical report issued on December 20, 1988, which concluded that “the right eardrum perforation had disappeared, though perceptive hypoacusia symptoms remained thus showing typical signs of hypoacusia.” On June 16, 1992, another medical examination was carried out, which showed that “[t]he hearing test performed on this date reveals a perceptive hypoacusia of the right ear” and that “audiometry findings are consistent with a perceptive unilateral hearing impairment (hearing loss).” Lastly, a new examination was carried out by a medical expert in these international proceedings, which concluded that the eardrum membrane of the victim showed “a reduction [...] of approximately 2 mm, as a consequence of a perforation.” (Medical reports issued by doctors Julio Alberto Ravioli, Jorge A. García-Blanco, José Bello, and Mariano Castex. Record of appendixes to the complaint, Volumes I, II and III, Appendixes 7 and 8, folios 307 to 309, 440, 441, 464, 866, 867, and 1045). 34 The report on the otorhinolaryngologic test performed on Mr. Bueno-Alves on May 13, 1988, established that “the injury described reflects a cause-effect connection with the reported injury. […] The triggering factor is compatible with the version of the person examined, and it should be borne in mind that in these cases, this type of injuries are the result of beatings with the palms in the outer ears, which suddenly increases the pressure in the external ear canal, leading to an eardrum perforation and causing the displacement of the bone chain into the inner ear.” The medical report issued by doctors Julio Alberto Ravioli, Jorge García-Blanco, and Mariano Castex on December 20, 1988, established that “the injury in the right ear has a four-sided cause-effect connection (chronologic, topographic, etiological, and symptomatic) with the traumatism described by the decedent […]; therefore, we believe that his lesion dates back from that time.” In these international proceedings, in their report of January 19, 2007, the medical experts appointed by the President of the Court held that the “injury […] in the right ear […] is consistent with a traumatism, which resulted in a minor hypoacusia in that ear.” Moreover, the medical report of June 16, 1992, points out that “any toxic, vascular, or hereditary-degenerative factors are excluded” (medical reports issued by doctors Julio Alberto Ravioli, Jorge García-Blanco, Mariano Castex, and José Bello. Record of appendixes to the complaint, Volume I, Appendixes 7 and 8, folios 308, 309, 440, 441, 866 and 867 and expert’s report (affidavit) of doctors Ravioli, Taragano, Nievas, and Schlenker. Record on the merits, Volume III, folios 1042 and 1045). 35 The judge who ordered the dismissal of the criminal proceedings initiated against Bueno-Alves reached an identical conclusion. Indeed, considering the statements made by Pérez-Galindo in that “the Federal Police, through the Fraud and Embezzlement Division, had used this case to obtain a warrant to search his professional office, given his capacity as Defense Counsel of one of the key accused in the renowned ‘SIVAK’ case,” the aforementioned judge considered that such explanations “have sufficient grounds” and found that “the allegations and explanations provided by the defendant PÉREZ-GALINDO regarding the true motive for the police action carried out were fully supported.” Cf. Judgment of October 5, 1988, (record of appendixes to the complaint, Volume I, Appendix 7, folios 245 to 253). 36 Cf. Search warrant and search procedure of April 5, 1988 (record of appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, Appendix A1, folios 4030, 4031, and 4034.