[…] The States Parties are obligated to offer the victims of human rights’ violations effective judicial recourses (Article 25), that must be substantiated pursuant to the rules of the due process of law (Article 8.1), all this within the general obligation, of the same States, to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights acknowledged by the Convention to everyone under its jurisdiction (Article 1.1).143 169. The Inter-American Court has established that once a crime of a human rights violation comes to the attention of State authorities, particularly of the right to humane treatment,144 it is their duty to open a serious, impartial and effective investigation ex officio and without delay,145 which must be carried out within a reasonable period of time. 146 In keeping with the duty to investigate with due diligence, a violation of the right to humane treatment, States are obligated to act, as of the beginning of the investigation, with the utmost urgency.147 170. Particularly, in cases involving allegations of torture or abuse, the Court has emphasize that “the time elapsed till the performance of the pertinent medical examinations is essential in order to unquestionably determine the existence of damage, especially when there are no witnesses other than the perpetrators and the victims themselves, and consequently the evidence may be scarce.”148 171. Regarding said investigation, the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture establishes that States are obligated to adopt effective measures to “punish torture” (Articles 1 and 6) and that if there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, “States Parties shall guarantee that their respective authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case […].” 172. Similarly, the United Nations Committee against Torture has established that when allegations of torture are made, an independent medical examination must be conducted in every instance in keeping with the Istanbul Protocol.149 Pursuant to said instrument, the medical assessment must include: i) case information; ii) clinician’s qualifications (for judicial testimony); iii) Statement regarding veracity of testimony (for judicial testimony); iv) background information; v) allegations of torture and ill-treatment; vi) physical symptoms and disabilities; vii) psychological history/examination; viii) photographs; ix) diagnostic test results; x) consultations; xi) interpretation of findings; xii) conclusions and recommendations; xiii) statement of truthfulness; n) statement of restrictions on the medical evaluation/investigation; xiv) clinician’s signature, date, place; xv) relevant annexes.150 143 IA Court of HR, Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison Vs. Peru. Judgment November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160. para. 381; IA Court of HR, Case of Goiburú et al v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 110; IA Court of HR, Case of Servellón García et al v. Honduras. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 147; and IA Court of HR, Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 175. 144 100. IA Court of HR, Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 145 IA Court of HR, Case of García Prieto et al v. El Salvador. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 101; IA Court of HR, Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 146; IA Court of HR, Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 130. 146 IA Court of HR, Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114; IA Court of HR, Case of la Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 163, para. 146; and IA Court of HR, Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 382. 147 IA Court of HR, Case of Zambrano Vélez et al v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166. Para. 121. 148 IA Court of HR, Case of Bueno Alves. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 164, para.111. Committee against Torture. Examination of reports submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention. CAT/c/MEX/CO/4. February 6, 2007. para. 16(a). 149 150 See: Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment “Istanbul Protocol.” Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, New York and Geneva, 2001. 40