43. Furthermore, the Public Prosecution Service argued that the administrative inquiries prompted by the allegations of mistreatment were all conducted in the presence of the Deputy Counsel General of the Republic, despite the fact that the Organic Law of the National Police does not authorize that authority to take part in police inquiries. It said that “that intervention further weakened the independence and transparency that an administrative inquiry in the police justice system should have." He argued that the purpose of his participation in the interrogations was to cover up for those under investigation "and to prevent any potential investigation from reaching then-Minister Bower."52 44. On December 30, 2019, a judgment was delivered that,53 in a two-to-one ruling, acquitted Walter Bower, Merardo Palacios and Osvaldo Vera, with a dissenting opinion from one of the judges. 45. The court considered that Jorge López's own statement contradicted the testimonies offered by other people in the trial. It referred to the statements of Victor Caceres Zamudio, who, the court recalled, 54 "did not see any blindfolds, did not hear a request for help, did not see physical duress toward Lopez" and said that Mr. Lopez affirmed that when he arrived at 11th Police Precinct, Emilio Lopez was already handcuffed and blindfolded. However, Mr. Victor Cáceres stated that while Jorge Lopez was testifying, Emilio Lopez entered, and that he did not recall seeing the latter blindfolded or handcuffed. On this last point, the court stated that the witness Fabián Ojeda did not see any police personnel "blindfolded or abused, or anyone mistreated." 55 In addition, the court noted that Jorge López and Emilio López contradicted each other regarding the time they were in Commissioner Pavón's office, and the type of blindfold used for each. 46. It also recalled that Mario Alejandro Ortellado saw Mr. Lopez standing, that "he believes he was handcuffed with his hands behind him," that the others were barefoot and standing, all with their hands secured behind them, they were blindfolded with paper and, he believes, with tape; that he did not observe any physical duress, that Jorge Lopez was in uniform, and that the police precinct was not disrupted in any way as a result of that activity.56 It also said that the statements of Diosnel Ferreira and Mario Ortellado indicated that they were present at the time the police officers were being questioned, and both of them said that they were all blindfolded, but that no one had been beaten or mistreated. However, Mr. Juan Escurra said that whoever who entered Pavon’s office was subjected to beatings on the soles of their feet. The court stated that Escurra, according to Ferreira's testimony, was also took part in the events relating to the coup, for which he was arrested.57 47. Among other aspects, the court noted the discrepancies in statements as what the detainees had been blindfolded with (statement by Prospero Arevalo Lopez). 58 It also noted that, in his testimony, Fabian Ojeda said that he was not subjected to duress, however, Lorenzo Genes said that all were beaten and had to be helped into the vehicle that transferred them to the Special Forces Headquarters. It said that those testimonies contradicted that of Victor Caceres, who indicated that no duress was applied, that no screams or requests for help were heard, and that all those arrested boarded the vehicle that went to the Special Forces Headquarters unassisted.59 Annex 3, Judgment S.D. No. 01 of December 30, 2019, Collegiate Sentencing Court of the Capital Judicial District, State’s brief of November 13, 2020, p. 61. 53 Annex 3, Judgment S.D. No. 01 of December 30, 2019, Collegiate Sentencing Court of the Capital Judicial District, State’s brief of November 13, 2020. 54 Annex 3, Judgment S.D. No. 01 of December 30, 2019, Collegiate Sentencing Court of the Capital Judicial District, State’s brief of November 13, 2020, p. 361. 55 Annex 3, Judgment S.D. No. 01 of December 30, 2019, Collegiate Sentencing Court of the Capital Judicial District, State’s brief of November 13, 2020, p. 362. 56 Annex 3, Judgment S.D. No. 01 of December 30, 2019, Collegiate Sentencing Court of the Capital Judicial District, State’s brief of November 13, 2020, p. 366. 57 Annex 3, Judgment S.D. No. 01 of December 30, 2019, Collegiate Sentencing Court of the Capital Judicial District, State’s brief of November 13, 2020, p. 368. 58 Annex 3, Judgment S.D. No. 01 of December 30, 2019, Collegiate Sentencing Court of the Capital Judicial District, State’s brief of November 13, 2020, p. 368. 59 Annex 3, Judgment S.D. No. 01 of December 30, 2019, Collegiate Sentencing Court of the Capital Judicial District, State’s brief of November 13, 2020, p. 372. 52 12