agent E.L. also described how on May 19 he was detained and transferred to Police Station 11, where he was handcuffed and blindfolded by the same agents who Mr. López identified as those who had tortured him. 179 Moreover, sergeant (suboficial) S.G. affirmed that he was transferred to Police Station 11 where he saw Mr. López on the floor, “covered in blood, [with] his face swollen, [and] his feet swollen and bloody.” 180 Furthermore, Mr. López stated that the next morning he was forced to kneel against the wall until around noon. That evening, he was taken to the Marine Corps, where he was again hit on the soles of his feet. All this time he remained handcuffed with his arms behind his back, which caused him “terrible pain” in his shoulders and arms. 181 Regarding the conditions of detention to which Mr. López was subjected, a matter disputed by the representative and the State, the Court finds that there is sufficient evidence to determine that Mr. López was subjected to serious physical and psychological suffering and, therefore, will not analyze those allegations. 99. Finally, with regard to the purpose of the acts in question, the Court notes that, after being detained, state agents subjected Mr. López to severe beatings while putting questions to him about “what he had done the night before,” 182 in the belief that the alleged victim had been involved in some way in the attempted coup d’état. 183 They also demanded that he denounce other people involved in the coup attempt. 184 100. Therefore, the Court holds that the mistreatment inflicted on Mr. López by state agents was intentional, caused him severe physical and psychological suffering and, moreover, was carried out with the objective of securing a confession from him about his alleged participation, along with a number of fellow officers, in the failed coup d’état that had taken place a day earlier. Consequently, the State is responsible for the acts of torture inflicted on Mr. López Sosa, in violation of Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, as well as Articles 1 and 6 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. VI-3 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION 185 A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 101. The Commission observed that there had been certain shortcomings in the investigation of the allegations of torture, such as the fact that the alleged victim was not examined by a doctor close to the time when the alleged acts of torture occurred, only a week later. It also stated that it did not have information indicating whether the 179 Cf. Final Judgment No. 1 of the Collegiate Trial Court of the Judicial District of Asunción, Case 01-0102-01-2000-2606, “J.B.P., M.P., O.V., W.B., for infliction of bodily injury in the performance of public duties and others,” of December 30, 2019 (evidence file, folios 224 and 225). 180 Cf. Final Judgment No. 1 of the Collegiate Trial Court of the Judicial District of Asunción, Case 01-0102-01-2000-2606, “J.B.P., M.P., O.V., W.B., for infliction of bodily injury in the performance of public duties and others,” of December 30, 2019 (evidence file, folios 229 to 230). 181 Cf. Mr. López Sosa’s testimony in the public hearing held during the 155th regular session. 182 Cf. Statement of the accused [Jorge Luis López Sosa] pursuant to Article 84 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, of December 12, 2000 (evidence file, folios 6 and 7); the Public Prosecution Service’s indictment and summons to trial, of June 11, 2001, Case 01-01-02-00001-2000-2606 (evidence file, folio 13), and Mr. López Sosa’s testimony in the public hearing held during the 155th regular session. 183 Cf. The Public Prosecution Service’s indictment and summons to trial, of June 11, 2001, Case 01-0102-00001-2000-2626 (evidence file, folio 12). 184 Cf. Mr. López Sosa’s testimony in the public hearing held during the 155th regular session. 185 Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 31