17 and one in the left lumbar region. The report also found “a forcible blow by a device at low speed, and posterior fracture of the manubrium of the sternum,”42 although it “does not rule out the relationship of this trauma” with one of the shots that entered the skull. With regard to Consuelo García-Santa Cruz, the report of the Forensic Medicine Institute establishes the presence of two bullet wounds in the skull. The representatives presented an expert report prepared by the Peruvian Forensic Anthropology Team that indicated that Mr. CantoralHuamaní had a fractured sternum, and that Mrs. García-Santa Cruz had two gunshot wounds and a fractured jaw.43 Both the Commission and the representatives affirm that the results of this autopsy prove that Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz were tortured before being executed. The State denies the existence of the alleged torture and considers that “the evidence submitted in the [Inter-American Commission’s] application is not sufficiently solid to affirm this violation.” It also indicates that the acts mentioned by the Inter-American Commission are not mentioned in any part of the Final Report of the CVR and, to the contrary, the newspaper source on which the Commission bases this affirmation states that “the bodies did not show any signs of torture or abuse.” Regarding the argument of the representatives, the State affirms that “there is evidence from newspaper sources that both supports and contradicts it” and indicates that, neither the witnesses mentioned by the Commission, nor those presented before the Court affirmed it at any point in their testimony. 71. The Court notes that the lack of information about the treatment that Saúl CantoralHuamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz received before being deprived of their life arises, to a great extent, from the absence of a serious and effective investigation into the facts of the case and, in particular, from the disappearance of the reports of the autopsy performed immediately after the facts, followed by the failure to perform new autopsies for several years. Indeed, not only were no measures taken to clarify what happened, but a considerable time after the first autopsies had been performed, the results were mislaid, as the State has acknowledged. This situation of uncertainty persisted for years. Only recently, in 2006, 17 years after the facts occurred, were the bodies exhumed in order to define the circumstances surrounding their deaths. The Court notes that, regarding the body of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní, while the expert report of the forensic Medicine Institute indicates that “no injuries to the ribs have been found that could suggest a comprehensive trauma to the chest,”44 the expert report of the Peruvian Forensic Anthropology Team determined the existence of an injury “[c]onsistent with a forcible trauma under the area of the fracture” and that this “impact could have resulted from an object of an irregular shape and undefined content.”45 The preliminary investigations 72. Regarding the actions of the State’s investigative bodies in relation to the death of the alleged victims, the Court takes into consideration the acknowledgement of the facts made by the State and the body of evidence in the instant case. The Court finds it has been proved that seven prosecutors heard the case, at least formally; that more than 18 years have elapsed since the murder of Saúl Cantoral Huamaní and Consuelo García Santa Cruz 42 Cf. Report issued by the Specialized Forensic Team of the Forensic Medicine Institute of the Attorney General’s Office in August 2006 (file of preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, pages 648-649). 43 Cf. Expert report in the cases: Saúl Isaac Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo Trinidad García-Santa Cruz issued by the experts of the Peruvian Forensic Anthropology Team (file of preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, pages 256-257, 260-261). 44 Cf. Report issued by the Specialized Forensic Team of the Forensic Medicine Institute of the Attorney General’s Office in August 2006 (file of preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, pages 644). 45 Cf. Expert report in the cases: Saúl Isaac Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo Trinidad García-Santa Cruz issued by the experts of the Peruvian Forensic Anthropology Team (file of preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, pages 256).