92 means to clarify acts that occurred in its territory. 438 Thus, the Court considers that the burden of proving the lack of independence of the forensic doctors attached to the State’s institutions in cases of torture should not rest exclusively on the party alleging this, because it is the State that has the means to prove that this guarantee was respected. 262. In this case, of the four physical examinations performed on Gladys Espinoza in 1993, two were carried out by the Institute of Forensic Medicine of the Public Prosecution Service, two by the forensic doctors and psychologists of the Criminalistics Directorate of the Peruvian National Police, and another by the Emergency Service of the Hospital of the Peruvian National Police. 439 The State did not submit arguments to disprove the alleged lack of independence of the doctors who evaluated Gladys Espinoza on those occasions, or evidence that proves whether the said doctors enjoyed guarantees for the independent exercise of their profession. Taking this into account, as well as the fact that the said doctors did not identify the signs which showed that Gladys Espinoza had been tortured and subjected to rape and other forms of sexual violence, even though the examinations performed revealed the progressive deterioration in her physical condition during her detention in the DINCOTE (supra para. 167), the Court considers that there is sufficient evidence to affirm that the said forensic doctors were not independent, impartial and objective. In this regard, the Court takes note that, during the oral hearing held before the National Terrorism Chamber on February 24, 2004, one of the forensic doctors, 440 who had signed the medical reports of April 20 and May 18, 1993, and another of them, 441 who also signed the medical report of May 18, 1993, did not deny or affirm that Gladys Espinoza’s injuries were the result of acts of torture, while the forensic doctor 442 who signed the medical report corresponding to the examination performed on April 22, 1993, stated that “it is not possible that [her injuries] resulted from torture.” The Court also takes note that, in October 2012, the prosecutor in charge of the investigation into the acts of torture and sexual violence against Gladys Espinoza asked the Institute of Forensic Medicine to provide information on the medical examinations carried out on Gladys Espinoza since 1993, and the request went unanswered (supra para. 90). 263. The absolute absence of an investigation from 1993 to 2004 despite the indications identified in this chapter should not be assessed in isolation. The Court has noted that, during the Peruvian conflict, “the prosecutors called upon by law to determine the existence of abuse and report them to the courts ignored complaints by detainees.” 443 Furthermore, the CVR, basing itself on reports of the National Human Rights Coordinator and of the International Committee of the Red Cross, confirmed in its Final Report that State officials, “concealed or even endorsed what took place,” and also indicated that, “despite the complaints of some victims and of national and international human rights organizations, as well as of organizations of the Catholic Church, the agents of justice failed to prosecute any member of the Police or Armed Forces for torture […]. Consequently, this unlawful practice continued to be implemented with 438 306. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 135, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 439 Cf. Medical forensic appraisal of the Abduction Investigation Division of the Peruvian National Police of April 22, 1993 (evidence file, folio 1565); Medical certificate No. 16111-L of the Institute of Forensic Medicine of April 20, 1991 (evidence file, folio 1567); Report No. 235-SE.HO.PNP.604000.93 of the Hospital of the Peruvian National Police of April 26, 1993 (evidence file, folio 1569); Report No. 052-ODINFO-DINCOTE of the Counter-terrorism Division of April 26, 1993 (evidence file, folio 1576), and Medical certificate No. 1816-H of the Institute of Forensic Medicine of Peru of May 18, 1993 (evidence file, folio 1571). 440 Cf. Statement by forensic doctor A.O.S. of February 24, 2004 (evidence file, folios 10377 and 10378). 441 Cf. Statement by forensic doctor J.A.M. of February 24, 2004 (evidence file, folio 10378). J.A.M. also ratified its content subsequently in 2013 (supra para. 90). 442 Statement by forensic doctor J.L.V. of February 24, 2004 (evidence file, folios 10380 and 10381). 443 Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 319.