48. The court recalled that Ricardo Orue Salinas, who was on guard duty on May 19 at the 11th Police Precinct, said that he was not aware that the persons arrested had been beaten, that he did not see anyone with signs of beatings, and that they got in unassisted when transferred in the group took them to the Special Forces Headquarters. In addition, regarding the description provided by Saturnino Antonio Gamarra (who said that Mr. López was bloody, his face swollen, his feet swollen with blood), it said that it contradicted the account of the alleged victim himself and those of other officials, and therefore it lacked probative weight. 60 Regarding Victor Cogliolo's statement, it considered that he described signs of torture that not even Mr. López himself described.61 49. The court considered that none of the witnesses offered the court positive certainty of the existence of the event itself, 62 "since there were opposing, contradictory and ambiguous versions or testimonies," starting with the fact that Mr. López claimed to have been beaten with a broom handle, while non-commissioned officers Genes, Sosa, Arevalos and Emilio López said they were mistreated with a "club or baton." It also said that there were inaccuracies about who actively participated in the mistreatment, as Arevalos said that it was Diosnel Ferreira, while Sosa claimed it was Osvaldo Vera. Likewise, it said that Emilio López and Jorge López contradicted each other as to the times at which the events took place, since the alleged victim claimed that he was taken to the 11th Police Precinct at approximately 7:00 a.m., and that when he arrived he saw Emilio López lying on the floor; however, the latter said that he was held at the Special Forces Headquarters on May 19 from 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., after which he was handed over to agents Pavon, Palacios and Vera. 50. Furthermore, the judgment includes a reference to the victimology report of the Public Prosecution Service's Victim Assistance Department, which says that several people who said they had been tortured, including the alleged victim, were interviewed in a cynical way. The description of common harm included feelings of humiliation and social stigmatization, as well as loss of confidence in the police, feelings of insecurity and affective, cognitive, interpersonal, workplace, and social relationship disorders, and emotional stress. In the conclusion relating to the specific harm to Mr. López, he expressed difficulty in coming to terms with his discharge from the police, concern for the consequences of the fact, state of permanent nervous agitation, feeling permanently on edge linked to the possibility of being victimized again, and depression associated with physical and mental exhaustion, anxiety, and irascibility. Regarding this evidence, the court noted that "this document is only partially legible, so it is impossible for the court to evaluate it positively, although it is true that a conclusion regarding Jorge López contained in it finds that he has difficulty accepting his discharge from the police and it makes no reference to the supposed physical duress that is under examination.” The court stated that the report "lacks a technical-scientific methodology to support its results (...) the person examined might very well be in the situation described for any number of reasons" that do not allow one to say for certain that the characteristics are due to the offense being tried in the case. 63 51. The record shows that the court also dismissed the evidence contained in the copy of the list of persons for whom an arrest warrant was issued under the state of emergency because it considered that it "has nothing to do with the existence of the act being tried." 64 52. In the judgment, the court held that "free conviction is always limited to in dubio pro reo. The court is obliged to uphold the presumption of innocence.” In addition, it considered that there was a wealth of testimonial evidence that was mainly contradictory, added to the fact that there appeared to be no scientific or technical proof that Mr. López had been subjected to physical or psychological duress, as the Public Prosecution Service and the joined criminal complaint alleged. In that regard, the court found that "the combined evidence offered and produced during the public hearing is unsuitable and insufficient to find the accused guilty (...) of 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. 373. 61 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. 378. 62 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. 378. 63 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. 404. 64 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. 404. 60 13