psychological abuse. Both requests were denied by the Criminal Judge. The defense counsel also requested that the Deputy Prosecutor, who had allegedly been involved in the mistreatment and coercion of Daniel García, be summoned to testify. However, the Fifth Criminal Judge did not admit this request stating that there was no evidence “that would allow [him] to verify […] the assertion made by the accused,” considering that “the judicial actions are covered by the prerogatives of public authority” and are therefore “reliable unless there is evidence to the contrary.” (supra para. 72). 218. During the public hearing of the case, Daniel García Rodríguez described to the Court the threats and mistreatment to which was allegedly subjected while under arraigo: […] I was chained there, in that place of arraigo and in the early morning a person who said he was the deputy prosecutor came and woke me up. He told me that I would have to sign documents accusing people that although I knew, I did not have proof of any criminal act. He insisted that if I didn’t do it, my relatives would be arrested and accused of crimes and said that he was sure that one day I would sign […] because he was going to detain [my relatives] until the moment he arrived with a family member that would hurt me the most. He followed through, and began to arrest my close relatives, first my two siblings, Martín Moreno Rodríguez and Elvia Moreno Rodríguez. I found out about this on television - the police officers knew it was going to happen because they turned on the television and at that moment I saw the search in my aunt’s house. I immediately thought it was unbelievable, because I knew perfectly well about my relatives’ activities and the news reported about alleged espionage activities and said that there was a sophisticated system to spy on municipal officials and directly accused the municipal president and me of that responsibility. Days later, they arrested my father, Isaías García Godínez, they tortured him and put him in arraigo with me, and then he was sent to prison, just like me. They also issued an arrest warrant for my brother Isaías García Rodríguez and a cousin, Francisco Javier Sánchez García, and persecuted other close family members. Every time this happened, this official would come to me […] to see if the arrest of my relatives was hurting me […]. 219. Daniel García Rodríguez also alleged before the Court that: […] the then governor […] and the [then] prosecutor […]publicly exhibited anyone they could think of as criminals, promoting themselves as leaders who would not hesitate to exercise justice […], this served them politically […] one of their public phrases […] was that human rights were not for rats […]. 220. On this point, the Court has established that, under Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the obligation to guarantee the rights recognized in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention implies the duty of the State to investigate possible acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, as specified in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the IACPPT. 233 In this regard, the Court has pointed out that Article 8 of the IACPPT clearly states that “if there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, the States Parties shall guarantee that their respective authorities will proceed, ex officio and immediately, to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal proceedings. 234 221. In this sense, the judge responsible for deciding on the legal situation of the detainee or defendant, on whether to release him or to order precautionary measures - as the first impartial 233 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, para. 54; Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 147; Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 27, 2020. Series C No. 398, para. 151; Case of Olivares Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 10, 2020. Series C No. 415, para. 134, and Case of Valencia Campo v. Bolivia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 18, 2022. Series C No. 469, para. 266. 234 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia, supra, para. 54, Case of Olivares Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela, para. 134; Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 174, and Case of Valencia Campo v. Bolivia, supra, para. 266. -57-