years old, respectively, and worked in construction in the Federal District. “[T]hey were subjected to torture while in the custody of the police officers who arrested them” “for the purpose of breaking their mental resistance and forcing them to incriminate themselves or confess to certain criminal actions.” “The effects of torture were evident in the first statements each made before the Public Prosecutor, and also in the first legal testimony that both gave on June 8, 1997.”28 On June 6, 1997, they made “statements” to the Judicial Police,29 during which time they “were not provided with the assistance of a defense counsel.”30 35. On June 6, 1997, Messrs. Juan García Cruz and Santiago Sánchez Silvestre also “rendered their first statement before the Public Prosecutor” of the Federal District. “The torture to which they were subjected compelled them to declare themselves guilty of the crimes and actions they were charged with regarding the possession of firearms for the exclusive use of the Army, homicide and injuries, among other charges. In the transcripts of these statements the prosecuting authority indicated that both showed “external signs of recent injuries” and both said that Judicial Police officers had caused these injuries. The official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office asked the General Director of Specialist Services to appoint an expert in medicine to determine the psychological and physical status and injuries of Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre before making their initial statement at prosecution. The first medical certificates, issued by the Departmental Forensic Medicine Unit of the Attorney General’s Office of the Federal District on the afternoon of June 6, 1997, stated that each of the victims “showed external signs of recent injuries, which by their nature, would take two weeks to heal.” After issuing their first statements on June 7, 1997, the forensic medical experts of the Specialist Services Division of the Federal District’s Attorney General’s Office issued a second medical certificate indicating that both victims had injuries which, by their nature, were not life threatening and would heal in less than two weeks.” A third medical certificate was issued in the evening of the same day with the same conclusion. It added that an “x-ray evaluation” was required for the “injuries to the shoulders and arms of [the victims], [and that] the affected areas also showed increased size as well as limited movement.” On June 8, 1997, Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre gave testimony before the Federal Public Prosecutor, and were accompanied by a “law student” as their “person of trust.”31 36. Article 287 of the Mexican Federal Code of Criminal Procedure establishes, inter alia, that “[a] confession made before the Public Prosecutor and before the judge, should […] be made […] without coercion, or physical or moral violence,” “with the assistance of a defense counsel or a person of trust.”32 37. “Juan García Cruz and Santiago Sánchez Silvestre were investigated and prosecuted in two criminal cases based on these same testimonies at prosecution, in which they stated that they were not arrested at the place indicated by the judicial police [,] and that they were injured and tortured by those [officers].” “[F]rom the initial investigative procedures” and “on repeated occasions” Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre and their legal representatives filed complaints or brought these acts of aggression and torture to the attention of the judicial authorities. “The judicial [and] prosecution authorities did not open an investigation” to obtain affirmed from their first statement before the Public Prosecutor that they were arrested at the house where they lived. Cf. Report on Merits No. 138/11, paras. 42 to 44, 135, 142, 143 and 164. 28 Report on Merits No. 138/11, paras. 42, 136, 210 and 213. 29 Report on Merits No. 138/11, para. 185. 30 The Commission indicated that there was no record that the victims were offered “the possibility of having legal counsel (or legal assistance) or that they were warned about the eventual consequences of their statements in terms of [their] inclusion in the criminal charges against them.” Report on Merits No. 138/11, paras. 185 and 187. 31 Cf. Report on Merits No. 138/11, paras. 44, 56, 57, 61, 63, 99 and 176. 32 Cf. Report on Merits No. 138/11, para. 64. 11