6 24. The petitioners allege that the practice of torture in Peru in the context of voluntary military service has been subject to extensive documentation and has not been contested, as reflected in the Observations of the UN Committee Against Torture to the Fourth Periodic Report of the State of Peru and in the Ombudsman’s Report No. 42, which refers to the case of Valdemir Quispealaya. 25. The petitioners state that the transfer of the proceeding from the military to the civil courts took place after COMISEDH presented the petition to the IACHR, but the case was later closed, based on the argument that for crimes of torture, a medical-legal certificate is indispensable in order to establish the victim’s period of disability and the medical attention that he required, or a document demonstrating that a major organ of the human body has been harmed, and that in the present case, there was no medical-legal certificate issued at the time when the events occurred. In this sense, they highlight that in the case file that was opened in the civil courts before it was transferred to the military courts, there were several medical certificates that recorded the injury, as well as witness statements about the events. Consequently, the petitioners maintain that the second investigation in the ordinary jurisdiction had the sole end of covering up the events that form the basis for this case. 26. The petitioners indicate that 11 years after the events took place, the torture suffered by Mr. Quispealaya has caused him an irreversible visual disability that has impacted his personal and family life, as it has constituted an obstacle to his finding a stable job in order to provide for himself and his family. They indicate that the alleged victim has been able to survive due to the support of his elderly mother. 27. In relation to the alleged violation of Article 5 of the American Convention and Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, the petitioners allege that given that Mr. Valdemir Quispealaya was performing voluntary military service at an Army base and was mistreated, the State is responsible in its role of guarantor of the rights enshrined in the Convention, because it is responsible for the torture in that the alleged victim was tortured when he was in state custody, and that the State bears the burden of proving the contrary. They state that during the period of investigation, Mr. Valdemir Quispealaya was the victim of physical and psychological mistreatment committed by a State agent, first noncommissioned officer of the Peruvian Army Juan Hilaquita Quispe, who was responsible for his training, and who assaulted the alleged victim in a disproportionate and unnecessary manner as punishment for the mistakes he made during shooting practice, which constitutes a form of torture, as the Ombudsman determined in its Report No. 42. They claim that furthermore, the State is responsible for the violation of Mr. Quispealaya’s right to personal integrity, based on its failure to carry out a proper investigation of the case and to punish noncommissioned officer Hilaquita. 28. The petitioners consider that the facts of this case characterize the crime of torture in accordance with Article 321 of the Criminal Code of Peru and with the definition contained in Article 2 of he Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, since the aim of the physical assault suffered by the alleged victim was to impose discipline by a public official, the first noncommissioned officer of the Armed Forces of Peru. They claim that the crime of torture not only seeks to protect the physical and moral integrity of the human being, but that it also especially protects the dignity of the person as a universal value. In relation to the gravity of the suffering or physical and mental pain inflicted, the petitioners state that as a consequence of the harm caused to Valdemir Quispealaya, he lost the vision in his right eye, leaving him disabled for life.