“take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their jurisdiction,” and also “to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” Furthermore, pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of this Convention, States Party must guarantee that: Any person making an accusation of having been subjected to torture within their jurisdiction shall have the right to an impartial examination of his case[, and] Likewise, if there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, […] that their respective authorities will proceed ex officio and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal proceedings. […] 233. As previously established, in this case, the obligation to investigate the acts of torture committed against Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez arose from the moment their defense counsel filed a complaint concerning the events. In addition, the Court emphasizes that the statements they made before different bodies, and the medical reports issued following the examinations they underwent, attested to the injuries they suffered while they were incarcerated in Ezeiza Federal Prison Complex I. Some of these reports recorded injuries to the young men’s feet consistent with the application of the “falanga” (supra para. 207). 234. In this regard, the Court reiterates that whenever there are indications that torture has occurred, the State must open an impartial, independent and thorough investigation, ex officio and immediately, that allows the nature and origin of the injuries observed to be determined, those responsible to be identified, and their prosecution to commence. 307 It is essential that the State act diligently to avoid alleged acts of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, taking into account that the victim usually abstains from denouncing the facts because he is afraid, especially when he is deprived of his liberty and in the State’s custody. Also, the judicial authorities have the duty to guarantee the rights of the individual deprived of liberty, which entails obtaining and protecting any evidence that can prove any alleged acts of torture. 308 235. Thus, the Court observes that, in this case, two investigations were opened in relation to the acts of torture, one into those perpetrated against Lucas Matías Mendoza and the other into those perpetrated against Claudio David Núñez. However, the prosecutor in charge requested the closure of the investigations after approximately six months because the victims had failed to identify the supposed perpetrators and owing to their “limited collaboration.” This occurred despite the existence of various medical reports and different statements about what happened to inmates Mendoza and Núñez, to the effect that they had been beaten by prison staff all over their bodies and on the soles of their feet; that the said prosecutor had responded by indicating that he “was in no position to deny the existence of the alleged incident,” and that the inmates had expressed their fear of reprisals for making the complaints, which could explain their supposed lack of collaboration (supra paras. 133, 205 and 207). The case file does not show that the State took any action in relation to these claims by the young inmates. The Court does not have any evidence either that statements were taken from anyone who was working at Ezeiza Federal Prison Complex I on the day of the events. Therefore, the Court considers that, in this case, the State placed its obligation to investigate upon the presumed victims, despite the fact, that this punishable by severe penalties that take into account their serious nature. The States Parties likewise shall take effective measures to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment within their jurisdiction.” 307 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, para. 54, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, para. 135. 308 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, para. 135. 77