55 treatment, taking into account that the victim usually abstains from denouncing the facts because he is afraid. Likewise, the judicial authorities have the duty to guarantee the rights of the person detained, which entails obtaining and protecting any evidence that can prove any alleged acts of torture.205 The State must guarantee the independence of the medical and health care personnel responsible for examining and providing assistance to those who are detained so that they can freely carry out the necessary medical evaluations, respecting the norms established for the practice of their profession.206 136. On the other hand, the Court whishes to highlight that whenever a person alleges, within a proceeding, that his statement or confession was obtained as a result of torture, the State party has the obligation to ascertain the veracity of such complaint207 by means of a diligent investigation. Likewise, the burden of the proof cannot rest on the complainant, but it is on the State to prove that the confession was voluntary.208 137. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State is responsible: a) for the violation of the right to humane treatment [personal integrity], embodied in articles 5(1) and 5(2), in conjunction with article 1(1) of the American Convention, for the cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment to which Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel were subjected and b) for the non-compliance with articles 1, 6 and 8 of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, regarding the obligation to investigate the alleged acts of torture to the detriment of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. IX RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS , DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS AND THE OBLIGATIONS EMBODIED IN THE INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH TORTURE 138. Regarding the alleged violation of articles 8,209 25210 and 2211 of the American Convention, the Commission and the representatives alleged that in the 205 Cf. Istanbul Protocol, supra note 149, para. 76. 206 Cf. Istanbul Protocol, supra note 149, para. 56, 60, 65 and 66. 207 Cf. United Nations. Committee against Torture. PE v. France. Communication 193/2001, Report of November 21, 2002, para. 6.3. 208 The Sub-committee on Prevention of Torture has indicated that: “As to the assessment of evidence, it falls upon the State to prove that its agents and institutions do not commit acts of torture and it is not for the victim to prove that acts of torture had taken place, specially when the victim has been subjected to conditions that make it impossible for him to prove it.” Cf. United Nations, Committee against Torture, Report on Mexico Produced by the Committee Under Article 20 of the Convention, para. 39. Moreover, United Nations. Committee on Human Rights. Singarasa v. Sri Lanka, Report of July 21, 2004, para. 7.4. 209 Article 8.1 of the American Convention (Right to a Fair Trial) establishes that: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 2. Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: a) the right of the accused to be assisted without charge by a translator or interpreter, if he does not understand or does not speak the language of the tribunal or court;