49 197. On the same date, on September 23, 1994, the autopsy of the body of Mr. Omeara Miraval was performed, in which it was determined that the mechanism of death was a "cerebral laceration," and that the cause of death was a “firearm projectile wound” (supra para. 91). The description of the body made in the report indicated that Mr. Omeara Miraval’s body did not show lesions in the mouth, nose and ears, neck, vertebral column, spinal cord, thoracic cavity and abdominal cavity, and that in the eyes there was a “bilateral enucleation”, and the wrists presented “grooves at the level of the hands”. No mention of other injuries was made in that report. 198. The Court also notes that relatives of the alleged victim declared that Mr. Omeara Miraval’s body had clear signs of torture. Jaime Antonio Omeara Miraval, brother of the alleged victim, stated that “[Mr. Omeara Miraval] appeared with his nails removed, he appeared without some teeth and he had all his teeth according to the autopsy performed on him, they also tortured his testicles and poured acids on him, we knew that because the one who was doing the lifting was telling us that.” Similarly, Fabiola Álvarez Solano testified before this Court that the body of her husband "had many obvious signs of torture." 192 199. Accordingly, the Court considers that the reports related to the exhumation and autopsy of Mr. Omeara Miraval’s body are not conclusive as evidence of physical mistreatment that would allow it to prove that, during the time he was disappeared, he was subjected to deliberate mistreatment, which caused severe physical and mental suffering, and which was committed with a certain aim or purpose.193. This Court also notes that neither the Commission nor the representatives contested the authenticity of said reports, and the evidence to the contrary is the statement of the alleged victim's brother, Jaime Antonio Omeara Miraval, who was present at the exhumation. 200. Thus, the Court concludes that the evidence submitted to it is not sufficient to prove that Mr. Omeara Miraval, while he was detained before his execution, suffered mistreatment that can be classified as acts of torture. The Court notes, however, that this conclusion is independent of the one the State may reach in the corresponding investigation (infra para. 294). C. Conclusion 201. Due to the partial acknowledgment by the State of its international responsibility for the forced disappearance and subsequent execution of Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval, this Court concludes that the State violated the rights to recognition of juridical personality, life, humane treatment, and personal liberty enshrined in Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, to his detriment. 202. The Court additionally concludes that the State is not responsible for the violation of Article 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, for the alleged acts of torture to which Mr. Omeara Miraval was allegedly subjected. while he was disappeared. Witness statement of Jaime Antonio Omeara Miraval of August 17, 2010, supra, and Statements of Fabiola Álvarez Solano, Carmen Teresa Omeara Miraval, Noel Emiro Omeara Miraval, Ricaurte Omeara Miraval and Araminta Omeara Miraval given by affidavit, supra. 193 Cf. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 79, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2016. Series C No. 316, para. 87. 192