an alleged act of torture.” Thus, "the evidence produced during the public hearing and weighed in accordance with the rules for evaluating evidence that governs us, does not allow us to reach the absolute certainty required for judges to find that the accused participated (...) in the offense of torture." 65 In conclusion, it established that the evidence created "reasonable doubt" as to the existence of the act. 53. Additionally, the sentence found that although, according to witnesses, they themselves were subjected to torture, "they were not included by the Public Prosecution Service in the indictment as victims of the act, so the court could scarcely convict the accused (...), for the acts that they have mentioned."66 54. In her dissent, the dissenting judge assessed the testimonies as “fully accrediting the offense of torture and demonstrating the authorship of the accused," and considered that the victimological diagnosis of the Victim Assistance Department of the Public Prosecution Service was crucial evidence that described objective elements of the criminal definition of torture and attested to “the state of mind of the victims and the consequences left on their bodies after being tortured.” 67 55. Finally, the Commission takes note of the fact that, according to information from the State, the aforementioned judgment is not final, following an appeal filed with the Court of Appeals for Criminal Matters, Third Division, in Asunción. IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS Annex 3, Judgment S.D. No. 01 of December 30, 2019, Collegiate Sentencing Court of the Capital Judicial District, State’s brief of November 13, 2020, p. 409. 66 Annex 3, Judgment S.D. No. 01 of December 30, 2019, Collegiate Sentencing Court of the Capital Judicial District, State’s brief of November 13, 2020, p. 372. 67 Annex 3, Judgment S.D. No. 01 of December 30, 2019, Collegiate Sentencing Court of the Capital Judicial District, State’s brief of November 13, 2020, p. 413 ff. Dissenting opinion. 65 14