48 123. Apart from listening to Dr. Tramsen at the public hearing, the Court received three expert opinions related to the allegations of torture, presented by expert witnesses Gutiérrez Hernández, Deutsch, and Quiroga (supra paras. 25 and 26). In relation to the opinion prepared by the expert witnesses Dr. Tramsen and Dr. Tidball-Binz, expert witness Gutiérrez Hernández concluded that “it is basically an opinion that disregarded the necessary scientific basis, that only provided unreal and subjective elements regarding the subject matter for which it was requested” and that “it neither complied with the international guidelines established by the Istanbul Protocol.”172 124. For his part, expert witness Quiroga concluded that “[t]he violent methods used during [the] detention and interrogation [of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel] and the findings of the physical examinations are consistent with each other, and consistent with torture.”173 The State argued that the medical investigation was performed “11 years and 28 days after the facts,” that “it did not take into account the preexisting reports and medical certificates, and those contemporary to the facts of the arrest of the people who are accused today,” and that it did not assess certain factors such as “[t]he detainees’ probable physical resistance during the arrest” and the contradictions in their statements. 125. In the psychological expert report of Ana Deutsch, given before notary public, Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel were diagnosed with symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder and major depression, allegedly linked to the physical harm stemming from the alleged torture which they would have been the victims of.174 172 In addition, expert witness Gutiérrez Hernández indicated that “in the case of Mr. Teodoro Cabrera, eight medical certificates had been prepared, all of which agreed in stating that he had no physical injuries, […] the first two of these certificates only mentioned a stab wound located behind the ear, […] that it was not recent, so that […] it already existed at the time of the arrest. In the specific case of Mr. Teodoro Cabrera, therefore, there was never any injury compatible with acts of physical torture. In the case of Mr. Rodolfo Montiel, for whom seven medical certificates were prepared […], the first two medical certificates state the presence of two linear excoriations of 1 centimeter in length, located on the forehead and that […] after performing the corresponding test, it was determined that, due to the type of injury, its characteristics and its magnitudes, it was a very slight injury, that it is definitely not compatible with the acts of torture that were being alleged.”.” Cf. Statement rendered by expert witness Juana Ma. Gutierrez Hernandez at the public hearing, supra note 162. 173 Regarding Mr. Cabrera García specifically, he mentioned that “he has daily, moderate to severe, headaches associated to emotional stress, consistent with a tension headaches diagnosis. He also complains of chronic, recurrent lumbar (back) pain, aggravated by physical activity and the years since he was arrested and beaten, which limits his work options.”.” In addition, “he has two scars in the temporal region (ears), secondary to old wounds inflicted by a sharp instrument […] consistent with his history of trauma caused by metal shards.” He also “has a scar on the chest, secondary to surgery to remove a mass that is possibly related to the trauma.”.” Finally, “[t]he medical examination demonstrates an atrophy of the right testicle […] consistent with testicular atrophy secondary to trauma.”.” Concerning Mr. Montiel Flores, he indicated that “[h]e has reduced bilateral hearing acuity, which has increased due to recurrent otitis that began during the period of detention.”.” In addition, “Rodolfo suffers from chronic headaches, and chronic pain in the neck, shoulders and lumbar region. Chronic pain is the most frequent symptom of severe trauma victims, and it is well documented in the literature.” Also, “[t]he decline in hand strength has been gradual and began during the period of detention.” “The decreased sensitivity in the anterior region of both thighs […] requires a neurological evaluation.” Cf. Expert opinion rendered by expert witness Jose Quiroga by means of an Affidavit on August 8, 2010 (record of evidence, volume III, folios 1316 to 1328). 174 Cf. Expert opinion rendered by expert witness Ana Deutsch by means of an Affidavit on August 8, 2010 (record of the merits, volume III, folios 1295 to 1304). Regarding this expert opinion, the State pointed out that "[t]he analysis of the expert witness does not describe nor provide grounds for the criteria mentioned in Annex 4 of the Istanbul Protocol.” Likewise, it mentioned that “[t]he expert opinion does not contain a description and minimum basic information regarding the previous personality of the patients, given that it disregards whether there are factors of said personality that have a bearing on or determine, or if applicable, modify the described symptomatology.”.” Therefore, the State indicated that all of the above denotes that this expert opinion "is not objective due to the fact that it uses and refers to different evaluative or personal opinions and expressions, describing only those elements that are