21 56. In the present case, in addition to not facilitating the appearance of the aforementioned witness, the State failed on various occasions to provide the following documentation: legislation related to all the procedural aspects of the extraordinary motion for review; a certified copy of the motion for review of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Council of Military Justice; the decision of the Supreme Court of Peru, dated October 22, 1993; the records of the military trial of Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides; and documents the State was asked to re-submit because they were illegible. In addition to this, it refused to allow Mr. Luis GuzmánCasas’ testimony to be taken in Peru. Therefore, the Court considers that the State did not fulfill its obligation to help clarify the facts of the case. 57. As regards the medical certificate issued by the Peruvian Institute of Forensic Medicine on February 8, 1993, two days after Cantoral-Benavides’ detention, on the basis of which it denied that the alleged victim had been tortured, it is the criteria of the Court that said certificate is not enough to weaken Cantoral-Benavides’ version of how he was treated in prison, considering that it only proves the absence of injury at a given moment, probably prior to the mistreatment to which he was submitted. Also, the file contains indications that make it possible to affirm that the medical exam that led to the issuance of the certificate (infra 63.g.) was not thorough, and that it constituted little more than a mere administrative formality. 58. Regarding the testimony given in the present case, the Court accepts it only to the extent that is in keeping with the purpose of the interrogation proposed by the Commission and, as for the expert opinion of Mr. Arsenio Ore-Guardia, the Court accepts it because it is related to the knowledge of the expert in the field of national or comparative law. With regard to the statement given by Mr. Julio Guillermo Neira, same is incorporated into the evidence as testimonial evidence, since it was proposed as such by the Commission in its application. 59. As for the statement given by Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides, the Court considers that, since he is the alleged victim in this case and has a direct interest in same, his comments cannot be assessed in isolation, but rather in light of the whole of the evidence of this proceeding. However, it must be considered that the statements of Mr. Cantoral-Benavides have special value, since it is he who can provide the most information regarding certain facts and alleged violations committed against his person. Taking into consideration the affirmations of the Commission regarding the fact that the accused was held incommunicado, his testimony becomes highly presumptive, since, if this fact could be demonstrated, it would imply necessarily that only Mr. Cantoral-Benavides and the State would have knowledge of the treatment the former received during the corresponding period.15 Therefore, said statement is incorporated into the evidence, with the reservations expressed. 60. As for the evidence produced in the Loayza-Tamayo case, and incorporated into the evidence of the present case (supra para. 38) by decision of the Court, it should be pointed out that same will be assessed within the context of the whole of evidence in this proceeding, and in accordance with the rules of “reasoned judgment.” 61. As for the official letter from the Registry of Complaints and Files (RUDE), the certification from the Executive Office of the Penitentiary Record Center of the 15 cfr. Suárez-Rosero Case, supra note 10, para. 33.