36 The witness reviewed a police report, an autopsy report and a photograph. The forensic report showed asphyxia from hanging as the cause of death. The police report indicated signs of torture. He considered that the victim received the wounds before his death, because the grazes and bruises were on the face and hands, and indicated torture. The documents were not consistent. There was information suggesting that the bodies had been moved after death. 7. Concerning Oscar Vásquez: The witness reviewed the file on Mr. Vásquez, which stated that several days after he was deprived of his liberty he bore signs of beatings on the chest and back. He had grazes and bruises which, in the witness’ opinion, indicated torture. 8. Concerning Erik Leonardo Chinchilla: The witness reviewed the autopsy report of February 17, 1988, in which the cause of Mr. Chinchilla’s death was stated as penetrating wounds to the cranium and thorax, produced by a firearm. He considered the report to be deficient. He found no evidence of torture in the documents on Mr. Chinchilla, only gunshot wounds. 9. General conclusions: The expert considered this case to reveal certain patterns or constants: two of the victims sustained wounds with a cutting edge on the thorax, one on each side, with penetration into the thorax and abdomen, puncturing the lungs, heart and liver; two others had indentations from hanging and wounds on the front of the left side of the neck; there were traces of indentations around the victims’ wrists and of grazing and other lesions on the face. There were gaps in the forensic report and a dearth of photographs. Signs of bruising or grazing did not necessarily indicate torture, depending on the circumstances. All the wounds visible in the photographs and recorded in the forensic reports were consistent with torture. m. Report of Ken Anderson, Professor at the Faculty of Law at the American University, Washington D.C., United States of America The witness testified that he had worked in Guatemala with the B.I.E.N. (Special Investigations and Narcotics Brigade) for nine months in 1987 in connection with his work with the International Human Rights Law Group. It was impossible to investigate human rights cases because the police could not touch them, in addition to which the political will to pursue them was lacking. The police acted under the direction of the examining magistrate or the judge in charge of the investigation. In cases where human rights violations were denounced, judges acted with great caution. In private conversations he had with several of them, they told him that fear was widespread and that they were not willing to investigate human rights cases. The judges did not possess the facilities for implementing habeas corpus, particularly when it meant going into military bases or police detention centers. The military authorities responded in writing without supplying any useful information. People were afraid and therefore reluctant to testify. There had been a number of cases in which policemen and soldiers were prosecuted, but virtually all of them concerned corruption rather than human rights violations. The 1985 Constitution did not facilitate the trial or sanction of security agents guilty of human rights violations.