9 Regarding to the instant case, the expert witness reported, first of all, that he had not personally interviewed any of the next of kin of the alleged victims. Regarding to Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri, he pointed out that the blows they received, as described in the significant photographs and documents, caused grave suffering and pain; the act was intentional, as the beating began when they were arrested; the purpose of the acts seemed to be that of investigating, but it may also have been to intimidate or coerce. The act was carried out by identified police officers. The expert witness stated his conclusion that “[t]here is no doubt that the two boys were tortured before they were murdered.” Regarding to Lucy Rosa Gómez Paquiyauri, sister of the alleged victims, the expert witness stated that the mental suffering of a 15 year old girl, when she learned that her two brothers were tortured to death, is “obvious”. The mental and physical torture caused during the interrogation and deprivations of liberty of Lucy Rosa, was inflicted intentionally by police and prison officers, with the aim of intimidating and “coercing” her. As a conclusion, the expert witness stated that Lucy suffered physical and mental torture. Regarding to the rest of the surviving family, the expert witness stated that the significant documents describe in detail that the DINCOTE visited the home of the Gómez Paquiyauri family and interrogated the family many times over several years, and this caused them mental suffering. Said actions were intentionally carried out by the DINCOTE with the aim of intimidating or coercing. The above led the expert witness to conclude that the whole family was mentally tortured. On the other hand, the expert witness stated that the State is responsible for making the prohibition of torture effective, and that carrying out the orders of a superior is not an excuse. Both the person who obeys the order and tortures, and the person who gives the order, are responsible. There is, in turn, the duty to criminally try and, when appropriate, to punish the torturers. 45. On May 1, 2004 the representative of the alleged victims and their next of kin forwarded a video as documentary evidence. 46. During the public hearing, both the representative of the alleged victims and their next of kin and the State filed several documents as evidence (supra para. 29).11 47. The representative of the alleged victims and their next of kin, as well as the State, when they submitted their respective final written pleadings (supra para. 30), attached various documents as evidence.12 48. On June 21, 2004 the representative of the alleged victims sent the 11 See file on the merits, reparations, and costs, volume IV, leaves 967 to 1046. 12 See file with appendixes to the brief with final pleadings submitted by the State, volume VI, leaves 1071 to 1172; and file with appendixes to the brief with final pleadings submitted by the representative of the alleged victims, volume VII, leaves 1173 to 1514.