38 inconceivable that there could have been another white van or other white vans in the hands of common criminals, one of whom passed himself off as a Treasury Police agent. His investigations showed that the Treasury Police Department had been operating on the margins of the law, abusing its power to the detriment of the citizens and breaching human rights. He was also able to verify some cases in which uniformed members of the Treasury Police had detained and remanded to the Courts some of the persons involved in this case. He had prepared a final report which he sent to the Judiciary. In that report he identified two vans, one white and the other cream. He also reported that the Treasury Police Department illegally used 14 private license plates. 68. At the public hearing held at its seat on November 13, 1997, the Court heard the testimony of Mr. Julio Aníbal Trejo-Duque, former Seventh Judge of Criminal First Instance, who had been in charge of the so-called "white van case." His statement is summarized as follows by the Court: The witness’s obligation in regard to the "white van case" was to attempt to convert the statements contained in the police report into judicial proceedings, but most of the witnesses refused to testify because they were afraid. He considered that 60 per cent of the police investigation submitted to him was "judicialized." He had made a judicial inspection of the seized vehicles at the Department of the National Police, but none revealed any evidence. It was usual for the Treasury Police to use private license plates, there being a great many such plates at both the National Police and the Treasury Police. Persons connected with the case were imprisoned: Ms. Torres-Gil, Mr. AngáritaRamírez, Mr. Vásquez and Mr. Montenegro, who, in his view, were the Treasury Police’s main accusers and then acted as private accusers against that institution. Mr. Angárita-Ramírez said that he had been brutalized by his captors but, although the existence of injuries was proven, he thought that they may have occurred while the accused was resisting arrest. He had never issued a warrant for the arrest of any Treasury Police agent or of Oscar Augusto Díaz-Urquizú. He summoned the accused to question them and they appeared voluntarily. Before initiating the inquiry, he had issued a restriction order against all of the accused. The examination was conducted in groups from July 19 to 22, 1988, after which he ordered preventive detention. At that stage he had five days in which to legalize the detention while he settled the legal situation of the accused. Under the law, at the end of those five days, he was obliged to order their release or place them in provisional imprisonment so that the investigation phase could begin. In order to issue the order for imprisonment there must be sufficient motive to suggest that the accused were guilty of the act. He only issued a detention order, given the short time he had to conduct the 27 examinations. He was kidnapped on July 20, 1988, released two days later, and told that his abduction had been a mistake. He was not asked any questions about the "white van case" during his captivity. He returned to work on July 23, 1988, at which time the examination of the accused had been completed. All of the accused were placed in preventive detention and the substitute judge, Vicente Sagastume-Pérez, issued an order for imprisonment of some of them, because the deadline had passed between July 19 and 22. He began to study the case as soon as he resumed his duties and, on July 26, decided to issue an order of provisional release ("libertad bajo caución juratoria") so that the case could move to the indictment stage ("sumario"), and to continue the investigation. On July 27, he ruled on the legal situation of the Treasury Police agents against whom Sagastume-Pérez had issued the imprisonment orders. He revoked those orders and issued an order for their provisional release and, in this way, the 27 accused remained connected to the process. The accused did not enjoy absolute freedom, but