66 174. On the one hand, Manuel Espinoza states in his affidavit dated March 25, 2014, presented to this Court, that when he and his mother went to the DINCOTE headquarters, the authorities initially “[…] denied that she was detained there. Some days later, the detention was reported in the press and this persuaded them to insist on knowing the whereabouts of [his] sister.” He indicated that “two weeks after we found out about the arrest of Gladys, and not having any information about her whereabouts and since the authorities refused to help, [they] decided to go to APRODEH [in order to take …] the steps required to find her.” Subsequently, only he and his mother were allowed to see her for five minutes, “but that was enough to be able to verify the deplorable state in […] in which she was […].” In this regard, he added that: The whole of her body had been violently beaten, and she had bruises and injuries, some of them had even been sutured. I think that, initially, the DINCOTE denied that she was there because at the time they had already tortured and abused her and did not want us to see her with the recent injuries, but wanted to gain time while they healed. Gladys was in a state of shock and although she could recognize us, my mother and me, she could not stop crying, together with our mother who was examining her injuries one by one […]. 311 175. Meanwhile, the witness Lily Cuba stated during the public hearing before the Court that, when she was in contact with Ms. Espinoza, the latter told her that “they had tortured her, they had beaten her […]; I was unable to see her, but later, at another time, I was able to help her bathe and she had injuries to her head, open wounds, her whole body had been beaten and bruised […].” 312 176. The Court noted that the testimony of these witnesses are consistent with the statements made by Gladys Espinoza between 1993 and 2014, the 1993 DINCOTE and DIVISE reports, and the psychological appraisals and physical examinations of Gladys Espinoza from 1993 to 2014. The Court underscores, in particular, that the testimony of Manuel Espinoza is consistent inasmuch as Gladys Espinoza was unable to communicate with her family during her detention in the DINCOTE, except for a very short time. B.2.6. Assessment of the failure to investigate the facts 177. The Court has indicated that, in cases in which the victims allege that they have been tortured while in the custody of the State, the State is responsible, in its capacity of guarantor of the rights recognized in the Convention, for the observance of the right to personal integrity of every individual who is in its custody. Furthermore, in its case law, the Court has indicated that whenever a person is deprived of liberty in normal health and subsequently appears with health problems, the State must provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of that situation. 313 Consequently, the presumption exists that the State is responsible for any injuries revealed by a person who has been in the custody of State agents. 314 In this situation, the State has the obligation to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of what happened and disprove the arguments concerning its responsibility, with satisfactory probative elements. 315 178. As will be established infra, in Chapter VIII.4 on the alleged violation of Ms. Espinoza’s rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, in the instant case the State has not conducted an effective investigation into what happened to Gladys Espinoza following her arrest on April 17, 1993, and while she was on the premises of the DIVISE and DINCOTE (infra para. 311 Affidavit made by Manuel Espinoza on March 25, 2014 (merits file, folios 912 and 913). 312 Testimony of Lily Elba Cuba Rivas before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing on April 4, 2014. 313 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, supra, paras. 99 and 100, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 343. 314 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, paras. 95 and 170, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 343. 315 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, para. 111, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 343.