Court also considers it essential to point out that the criminal proceedings brought against Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre for possessing firearms used exclusively by the Army has a different purpose than the investigation into the acts of torture committed to their detriment.70 Given the allegations of torture made by García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre and the evidence contained both in their statements and in the medical certificates confirming their physical injuries (supra paras. 34 and 35),71 the State had a responsibility to immediately open an effective investigation into the allegations of torture, in accordance with specific protocols and standards.72 Whether or not these acts constituted the crime of torture or other offences, such as injuries, was not a ruling to be made by the judges conducting the criminal proceedings against Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre. 58. Furthermore, the Court reiterates its jurisprudence on the rule of excluding evidence obtained through torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and coercion capable of breaking a person’s spontaneous expression of will. 73 The Court has also stated that to accept or give probative value to statements or confessions obtained under duress, affecting the person rendering it or a third party, in turn constitutes an infringement of the right to a fair trial. 74 In view of the criminal judgment issued on February 12, 2002 (supra para. 47), the Court deems it appropriate to emphasize that any act of torture that may have occurred prior to a defendant making a statement could have an impact at the time when the statement is rendered.75 59. Moreover, it has come to the Court’s attention that in 2013, after the Commission had issued its Report on Merits and submitted this case to the Court, two judgments of particular importance were issued which, due to their contents and being aimed at the protection of the carrying guns” adding that there is a “possibility they could have been caused” by “the physical training” carried out “by the Guerilla Movement.” In addition, the prosecutor argued that the lawyer for the accused could file a complaint for the crime of physical injury. Cf. Report on Merits No. 138/11, paras. 81 and 149. Likewise, in the proceedings brought against Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre for the offences of homicide, injuries, violent robbery, organized crime and damage to property, the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office was not notified about the probable acts of torture reported by Messrs. Juan García Cruz and Santiago Sánchez Silvestre. Cf. Report on Merits No. 138/11, para. 120. 70 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, paras. 169 and 201. 71 The judicial and prosecution authorities in the criminal proceedings conducted against the victims had knowledge of the presumed acts of torture against the victims, since they alleged repeatedly, and at different stages of the criminal proceedings, that they were tortured. This was confirmed through medical certificates confirming visible physical injuries. Cf. Report on Merits No. 138/11, paras. 57 and 61. 72 Cf. Case of Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paras. 153 and 154; Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra note 70, paras. 135 and 192 and Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 267, paras. 122 and 124. 73 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, paras. 165 and 166. Article 8(3) of the Convention clearly states that “[a] confession of guilt by the accused shall be valid only if it is made without coercion of any kind.” Furthermore, the Court has ruled that when a person alleges, during a proceeding, that his statement or confession had been obtained under duress, the State has the obligation to verify the truth of the complaint by means of an investigation conducted with due diligence. The Court recalls that the State, in its role as guarantor, has as much responsibility for guaranteeing the rights of an individual in its custody as for providing information and evidence concerning what happened to the detainee. Likewise, the State is presumed responsible for any injuries exhibited by a person who has been in the custody of state officials and has an obligation to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of what happened and prove that any statement made was voluntary. Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 170; Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra note 70, paras. 134 and 136, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 203. 74 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra note 70, para. 167. 75 The Court has held that any statement made subsequent to an alleged act of torture may be the consequence of the abuse suffered by the person, and particularly of the fear that remains after such an act, which adds to the situation of vulnerability in which the person finds himself upon being detained. Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 104 and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra note 70, paras. 173 to 175. 18