63 identification, the trial and the punishment of those responsible, whenever there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed in violation of Article 5 of the American Convention. Furthermore, this action is specifically regulated in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, which Articles bind the State Parties to take all steps that may be effective to prevent and punish all acts of torture within the scope of their 202 jurisdiction […] . 305. held that: Following this same line of reasoning, in the case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina, the Court As regards the obligation to guarantee the right enshrined in Article 5(1) of the Convention, the Court has pointed out that this obligation implies the duty of the State to conduct an adequate investigation into the possible acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. As regards the effective investigation and the documentation, the following principles are applicable: independence, impartiality, competence, diligence, and promptness, which must be adopted by any 203 judicial system and applied to all investigations involving alleged tortures. 306. As for the criminal investigation into the events in which Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez sustained injuries, the petitioners reported that Lomas de Zamora Federal Criminal 204 and Correctional Court No. 2 had received the respective complaint on December 26, 2007. Later, in a communication dated July 10, 2009, the petitioners alleged that “rather than conduct an in-depth investigation to determine whether the prison guards bore any criminal blame […] the judge in charge of the investigations decided to close them.” The State, for its part, offered no specific arguments in connection with these allegations. 307. As for the criminal cases prosecuted in connection with the injuries that Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez sustained, cases Nos. 615 and 616, the Acting Federal Prosecutor in charge of the Lomas de Zamora Public Prosecutor’s Office No. 2, who was in charge of the investigations, requested that they be closed on June 23 and February 1, 2008, respectively. Having examined both requests that the Prosecution filed seeking to have the investigations closed, it appears that the only consideration cited by the examining prosecutor is the victims’ reticence about naming those alleged to have mistreated them. This despite the fact that both stated that their assailants were members of the prison security service. 308. In his request asking that case No. 616 be closed the prosecutor asserted the following: “the prosecution is not prepared to deny the complaint made; nevertheless, the victim has done little to cooperate by providing details on how the events transpired and who the eventual perpetrators were, 205 which makes it impossible to continue the inquiry.” Furthermore, both applications filed with the court seeking to have the investigations closed made reference to the forensic medical reports’ findings that the injuries that Claudio David Núñez sustained were not serious. The applications described the report as follows: “[…] the medical report duly requested from the Forensic Medical Cops of the National Justice System, the original of which should be attached […], concludes that Claudio David Núñez has no external injuries […]” and “[…] that the injuries that Lucas Mendoza reportedly sustained are mild, and should take 206 less than a month to heal … during which time he will be unable to work.” 202 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gutiérrez Soler V. Colombia. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, para. 54; I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 159; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 114. 203 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bueno Alves. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 164, para. 108. 204 These complaints were brought by Dr. Juan Facundo Hernández, attorney with the Cooperative for the Rights of Children and Adolescents. 205 The petitioners’ brief, received on July 10, 2009. Attachment. Request filed on February 1, 2008, in which Federal Prosecutor’s Office No. 2 requests that proceedings in case No. 616 be closed. 206 The petitioners’ brief, received on July 10, 2009. Attachment. Request filed on February 1, 2008, in which Federal Prosecutor’s Office No. 2 requests that proceedings in case No. 616 be closed.