the necessary evidence, in a timely manner, and eventually initiate the ex officio procedure. Likewise, the judge must ensure that the detained person who claims to have been tortured or is suspected of having been tortured, is assessed by a physician who can provide immediate health care. The examination for the purpose of documenting physical injuries must be carried out by a physician who has no links with the detention facilities or the prison authorities. 202 The Court notes that the State has not proven that this occurred in the instant case, and, moreover, the fact that Mr. López was brought before the judge of the Criminal Court of Guarantees eleven days after he was tortured undoubtedly had an impact on the observation of the consequences of the acts of torture and how they were inflicted. 118. It is important to note that in cases where there are allegations of alleged torture or abuse, the time elapsed for the corresponding medical examinations is essential to reliably determine the existence of the harm, especially when there are no witnesses beyond the perpetrators and the victims themselves and, consequently, evidence may be scarce. Thus, it may be concluded that in order for an investigation into acts of torture to be effective, it must be carried out promptly. 203 The Court also recalls that the evidence obtained through medical examinations plays a crucial role during the investigations carried out against detainees and in cases where mistreatment is alleged. 204 In this sense, the allegations of mistreatment that occurred in police custody are extremely difficult for the victim to substantiate if they were isolated from the outside world, without access to doctors, lawyers, family or friends who can support and gather the necessary evidence. 205 119. Furthermore, the Court notes that the State failed to provide any evidence to prove that the investigation was carried out pursuant to the standards required by the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the Istanbul Protocol"). 206 For purely illustrative purposes, the Court notes that there is no evidence that in the instant case (i) color photographs were taken of the injuries of the person alleging he was tortured, of the premises where the alleged torture occurred (interior and exterior) and of any other physical evidence found there; (ii) physical evidence was collected in a timely manner (such as, for example, elements that could have been used to inflict torture or fingerprint evidence); or (iii) the chain of custody of the physical evidence had been adequately documented. 207 The Court notes that the forensic report on Mr. López, mentioned in the Criminal Court judgment of December 30, 2019, which declared that the existence of the punishable act of torture had not been proven and acquitted the accused, lacked the necessary “technical-scientific methodology to confirm the results,” 208 which, undoubtedly, could have contributed to the ineffective investigation of the events as Mr. López claims. Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 102, and Case of García Rodríguez et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 221. 203 Cf. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 111, and Case of Valenzuela Ávila v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 11, 2019. Series C No. 386, para. 184. 204 Cf. Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 333, and Case of Valenzuela Ávila v. Guatemala, supra, para. 184. 205 Cf. Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 333, and Case of Valenzuela Ávila v. Guatemala, supra, para. 184. 206 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, para. 100. 207 Cf. Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“Istanbul Protocol”), paras. 102, 103 and 106. 208 Cf. Final Judgment No. 1 of the Collegiate Trial Court of the Judicial District of Asunción, Case 01-0102-01-2000-2606, “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, folio 419). 202 36