of torture constituted a violation of the obligations established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, and in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 190. The State denied the alleged acts of torture. Among other arguments, it held that the Commission and the representatives based their claims of acts of torture against Reyes Alpízar Ortiz taking into consideration only some of the expert opinions of the forensic doctors assigned to the former PGJEM, and also alleged a lack of independence on the part of the PGJEM’s forensic doctors when the results were found to be negative to any possible act of torture. The State emphasized the total independence of the forensic medical unit attached to the then PGJEM, which was guaranteed through the oversight mechanisms and the legal framework applicable at the time of the events. Regarding the alleged acts of torture against Daniel García Rodríguez, it argued that the medical certificates do not show any physical injury during his arraigo, so there are no elements that meet the criteria developed by the Court to consider them as torture. As for the possible mental suffering, the State understood that, from the evidence gathered in the context of the investigation, it was concluded that there was no such intense mental suffering either, and that the alleged threats were unfounded. Likewise, with regard to the alleged acts of torture against Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, it indicated that the expert certifications issued during his arraigo showed natural physical injuries caused at the time of his arrest on October 25, 2002, which had disappeared completely as of November 11, 2002. Regarding the possible mental suffering, from the tests carried out in the context of the investigation, it was concluded that there was no such suffering. 191. Regarding the investigations into the alleged acts of torture, the State argued that the Commission failed to analyze the investigation carried out by the State and did not take into account the procedural activity of the alleged victims from 2011 to 2018; nevertheless, the Commission concluded that there was an unwarranted delay. The State also referred to the 536 procedures carried out by the Office of the Special Anti-corruption Prosecutor based in Tlalnepantla, as part of the investigation into alleged acts of torture. These procedures included, inter alia, the expert opinions rendered at the time in 2002, as well as new expert evidence and the search for and rendering of testimonies of persons who witnessed the events at the time. 219 B. Considerations of the Court 192. According to Article 5 of the American Convention, every person deprived of liberty has the right to live in conditions compatible with his or her personal dignity. In this regard, the Court has indicated that the injuries, suffering, damage to health or harm suffered by a person while deprived of liberty may constitute a form of cruel punishment when, due to the conditions of confinement, there is a deterioration in the person’s physical, mental and moral integrity, strictly prohibited by Article 5(2) of the Convention, which is not a natural and direct consequence of the deprivation of liberty itself. As for the conditions of the facilities in which persons deprived of liberty are held, keeping a detainee in overcrowded conditions, lacking natural light and ventilation, without a bed act, but rather the effects were “extended” for an indeterminate period. Hence, they considered that the Court should also recognize this type of psychological torture as another form of violation of Article 5 of the Convention. 219 The State argued that the investigation carried out complied with the Court’s own standards, and guaranteed the right of the alleged victims to offer evidence and object to the decisions with which they disagreed. It also indicated that the alleged victims did not challenge the decision not to prosecute, issued on May 3, 2021, nor the authorization of the Regional Prosecutor of Tlalnepantla of May 18, 2021, which was duly notified to the alleged victims through their legal counsel on May 21, 2021. This, despite the fact that the representatives of the alleged victims had legal remedies (appeals) available to them, so it is understood that they accepted and agreed with the results of the investigation. -51-