there, such as Raúl Díaz in this case. If officials became aware of complaints about the detention conditions they took reprisals that could be physical or psychological, although […] only some officials behaved like that; most of them rejected [that type of] practice.” 52. When testifying during the public hearing, Mr. Díaz Peña stated that “the treatment of the DISIP officials was fairly harsh; it was rough, humiliating; they insulted you for your political opinions [with] constant threats, [such as:] we’re going to send you to prison so that they kill you; we won’t allow your family to see you; we’re going to eliminate visiting rights; we’re going to eliminate benefits – benefits that we did not have.”37 In this regard, during the public hearing and in her final written arguments, the representative argued that the alleged torture by mechanical suffocation (asphyxia), the alleged collective punishment, the punishment cells known as “tigritos,” and the physical ill-treatment to which Mr. Díaz Peña had been subjected, caused him emotional harm and she therefore alleged the violation of Article 5(2) of the American Convention. Moreover, she indicated that the victim did not recall having received visits from the Ombudsman’s Office, even though, in view of the alleged torture and violations, his family had resorted to this Office, “however, since this was a political case, it [had] refused to accept the complaints.” For its part, the Commission did not submit any arguments in this regard. 53. The State questioned the absence of a complaint concerning the alleged torture before either the court hearing the case during the criminal proceedings, the prosecution, the Ombudsman’s Office or the Red Cross, all of which had allegedly visited the presumed victim on several occasions. Regarding the supposed complaint filed before the Ombudsman’s Office, it noted that “there is no file and no documentation concerning the case.” Consequently, it indicated that “they never went to the Ombudsman’s Office [and] never filed a complaint before a court.” 54. The Commission dedicated paragraphs 195 to 214 of its merits report to this issue and, based on the facts and probative elements mentioned therein, it determined “that, despite the seriousness of his health condition, Raúl José Díaz Peña did not receive treatment or adequate and timely medical care at the detention center with negative consequences for his actual health” and concluded “that the deficient medical care received by the alleged victim violates[d] Article 5 of the American Convention.” In addition, it concluded that “the State [had] violated Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Raúl José Díaz Peña.” Furthermore, with regard to the facts described by Mr. Díaz Peña, as well as the arguments submitted by the representative regarding acts that would constitute torture, the Commission merely reproduced in paragraph 95 of its merits report the allegations of the then petitioner without making a factual determination in this regard (supra para. 34). Consequently, the facts related to the alleged torture by mechanical asphyxia, the alleged collective punishment, the punishment cells known as “tigritos,” and the physical ill-treatment to which it is alleged Mr. Díaz 37 Specifically, Mr. Díaz Peña stated the following: “In mid-2004 during the said appeal, I issued a press release; owing to this they placed me in a punishment cell for 48 hours where I had no access to water, no access to a toilet, I slept on the floor [and] did not have the right to wash myself. But the worst treatment by the officials was in mid-2005 during the escape [of a detainee]. At that time, I was tortured by DISIP officials and I was not the only one; around 3 or 4 more detainees were tortured so that we would say who had let [the said individual] out of his cell; even though we told these officials that we had no information about it, they continued. This torture included putting adhesive tape around our wrists before handcuffing us, so that the handcuffs would not leave marks; nevertheless, […] this did leave a mark on me and this is a deformation in the bone of my left hand […]. After they handcuff someone, they lift his arms, they cover you with a type of mattress and begin to hit you, with a stick such as a bat; they do this so that there are no external scars on your body; however, the external scars remain; fortunately, none of my ribs were broken, nothing like this, but I ached because of the beating. After this, since I continued to say nothing to them, because I knew nothing, they placed a plastic bag over my head after spraying the inside of the bag with insecticide, and closed it to asphyxiate me; they repeated this procedure 3 or 4 time until they were convinced that evidently I did not know who had helped [the said individual] escape from his cell.” Testimony given by Raúl José Díaz Peña by electronic audiovisual means before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights during the public hearing held on December 1, 2011. 16