47 Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel]. Even more, the medical history of the patients coincides with the corresponding development of the symptoms described by the medical science.”166 Nevertheless, they recommended “to perform, at any case […] additional examinations to both individuals in order to determine […] the total physical and psychological harm caused by the torture and to propose the corresponding treatment.”167 122. The domestic courts and the State168 considered that said expert opinion was insufficient to prove torture, because: i) it was alleged lack of impartiality of doctors Tramsen and Tidball-Binz since the alleged victims recognized them as advocates of trust and “in order to have access to the confinement center, the representatives “authorized [them] […] as members of the legal area of their organization [which was not necessary, given that] there are procedures to authorize a medical evaluation [...] of detained people;” ii) the conclusions of the experts witnesses constituted inaccurate and general assessments; they did not take into account the evidence existing in the criminal proceeding and the conclusions of the experts’ opinion were not supported by any scientific study but only with a body examination,169 and iii) it was prepared a year later. Regarding the first argument, the Court reiterates what was established in its Resolution of August 23, 2010, in the sense that “according to Mexican law, the sole designation of a ‘person of trust’ does not necessarily imply the ‘material conduct of the defense’” and that “there is no record of a defense proceeding conducted by Mr. Tramsen, instead there is evidence that his action was limited to the expert opinion” (supra para. 26). In second place, the Court considers that Messrs. Tramsen and Tidball-Binz met the minimum requirements established in the Istanbul Protocol since they drafted an accurate report containing an interview, history, physical and physiological test, opinion and authorship.170 Finally, the Court notes that the Protocol provides that “[t]he timeliness of such medical examination is particularly important” and "[a] medical examination should be undertaken regardless of the length of time since the torture,”171 therefore, the conduct of the examination a year after the facts does not question its validity. 166 Cf. Physicians for Human Rights- Denmark. The case of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel, supra note 165, folio 8382. 167 Cf. Physicians for Human Rights- Denmark. The case of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel, supra note 165, folio 8383. 168 The State attached an “Analysis of the expert opinion furnished as evidence”, issued without a date, in which the Public Prosecutor’s Office (PGR [“Procuraduría General de la República” in Spanish]) “made an analysis in which the expert opinion issued by the organization “Physicians for Human Rights Denmark” and by the other [,] the proceedings that [existed] […] regarding the different medical certifications […] in [the case file].”.” In view of this, the PGR concluded, inter alia, that the expert opinion prepared by Messrs. Tramsen and Tidball-Binz: i) “does not adjust to what a forensic medical expert opinion should methodologically consist of, apart from the fact that it was not offered as expert evidence with the formalities required by the Federal Code of Criminal Procedures;" ii) "it lacks of scientific-technical methodology;" iii) "[i]t does not contemplate the information of international standards;” iv) “it is dogmatic given that it does not select nor order the information obtained by means of the version of the patients, search and identification of fingerprints, indicia or after-effects of physical injuries and/or psychological disorders closely related to the facts denounced;” v) “[t]he medical investigation was conducted 14 months and 27 days after the facts and was presented with an informative style of a Report type, regarding facts allegedly lived by the petitioners;” vi) “it did not [take] into account the existing reports and medical certificates," and vii) that "the evidence is not consistent with the alleged narration of the facts, therefore, the physical-clinical-psychological diagnosis does not suggest a true allegation of physical or mental torture.”.” Cf. Analysis of the expert report exhibited as evidence. Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic (PGR) without date (record of annexes to the answer to the application, volume XLV, folios 22471 to 22477). 169 Cf. Judgment issued on August 14, 2002 by the Second Collegiate Tribunal, supra note 84, folio 14464. 170 Cf. Istanbul Protocol, supra note 149, para. 82. 171 Cf. Istanbul Protocol, supra note 149, para. 103.