e) the examination performed on November 28, 2002, stated that although Reyes Alpízar referred to pain in the anterior thorax, he had no “apparent bodily injuries” and had no “signs of external injuries”; and f) the examination performed on December 4, 2002, showed similar results to those carried out on November 28 (supra paras. 90 and 91). 207. This Court notes that a few years later, in a report dated November 7, 2007, a medical expert indicated that Reyes Alpízar had been a victim of torture and that there was “a strong connection between the physical and psychological evidence that correlates with what was reported by the victim, which shows that the injuries suffered by Reyes Alpízar Ortiz were caused by the traumas described by him and that he was subjected to severe psychological pressures.” The expert found a number of injuries that should have been reported but were not recorded or were minimized, and whose sequelae persist. He also noted various irregularities in the reports, including an emergency hospital admission on October 29, 2002, which was not recorded (supra para. 92). 208. In addition, CODHEM carried out a medical examination of Reyes Alpízar on December 11, 2007, and concluded that “from a forensic medical point of view, there are no technical or medical elements that allow us to prove or rule out the allegations made by the victim” (supra paras. 94). 209. Likewise, a medical report dated May 8, 2008, performed by the medical expert of the Tlalnepantla Deputy District Attorney’s Office, who had inspected Reyes Alpízar during his arraigo, contrasted the allegations with medical certificates issued during the arrest and arraigo and a physical examination carried out in February 2008, and concluded that Reyes Alpízar had injuries “from the moment of his arrest and during his arraigo. These injuries had disappeared as of November 7.” In addition, two PGJEM psychologists concluded that “no signs or symptoms of posttraumatic stress or depression, or of any psychological disorder characteristic of torture cases, were detected in Reyes Alpízar Ortiz.” (supra para. 93). 210. In view of these contradictions, on June 5, 2008, the Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance ordered the appointment of third party experts. Accordingly, two psychologists examined Reyes Alpízar. The examination of the first expert psychologist concluded that Reyes Alpízar presented “signs and symptoms characteristic of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), lasting personality changes, general depression and anguish […which] undoubtedly correspond to cruel and inhuman treatment and punishment typical of torture.” The second psychologist indicated that “he presents signs and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder of the torture type.” Finally, on February 17, 2010, a third expert indicated that he did not find “technical or scientific elements to support the existence of physical torture on the body of Reyes Alpízar Ortiz” (supra para. 95). 211. The Court notes that, since his arrest, Reyes Alpízar has undergone numerous medical and psychological examinations (the State indicated that there were 54 medical examinations), and that several of them are contradictory. Thus, while some of the examinations performed concluded that he was subjected to torture or appeared with injuries that he did not have at the time of his arrest, others refer to injuries that predated his detention. Similarly, some psychological assessments indicate that he has post-traumatic stress disorder due to cruel and inhuman treatment and punishment characteristic of torture, while others affirm the opposite (supra para. 95). 212. For this Court, it is evident that the State has not provided a plausible and satisfactory explanation to resolve these contradictions between the examinations carried out and the testimony of Reyes Alpízar denouncing the mistreatment to which he was allegedly subjected. The fact that Reyes Alpízar was under the total control of State authorities during the period in which these contradictions in the examinations occurred is even more relevant when analyzing the State’s responsibility. The Court also notes that some of the results of the medical examinations are consistent with the statements made by Reyes Alpízar, who indicated from his first statement that he had been subjected to mistreatment and coercion to obtain his confession for his alleged participation in the murder of the mayor. Therefore, it is not surprising that Reyes Alpízar signed -55-