authority with whom detainees have contact- must be the guarantor of compliance with the duty to investigate established in the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. Consequently, in cases in which there is a complaint or suspicion that a detained person has been subjected to torture, the judge must immediately refer the detained person to the competent authority for a medical examination in order to gather the necessary evidence, in a timely manner, and eventually initiate the ex officio procedure. Likewise, the judge must ensure that the detained person who claims to have been tortured or is suspected of having been tortured, is assessed by a physician who can provide immediate health care. The examination for the purpose of documenting physical injuries must be carried out by a physician who has no links with the detention facilities or the prison authorities. In this sense, a judge cannot disregard a complaint of torture, in the face of which he acts as guarantor for the person subject to the process. 222. In sum, it is clear to this Court that Daniel García Rodríguez reported that he was subjected to severe physical and psychological mistreatment during the time he was under arraigo, and that there is no record that his complaints were investigated. The psychological abuse described by Daniel García is extremely severe, as it consisted of threatening and detaining his family members and loved ones. In addition, these actions had a specific purpose, which was to obtain his confession and make him sign documents implicating other persons. Moreover, Daniel García’s complaints were brought to the attention of the competent authorities but were not investigated by them, and the Fifth Criminal Judge did not even admit said evidence because he considered that “judicial actions are covered by the prerogatives of having been carried out by a public authority” (supra para. 72). Thus, the State did not refute these allegations or provide a plausible explanation for them. The above occurred in the context of arraigo, a situation in which he was vulnerable to acts of torture, as mentioned in the previous section (supra para. 213). To this must be added the fact that he was kept in chains during the period in which he was under arraigo, which was not refuted by the State. For all these reasons, it may be concluded that was subjected to mistreatment and psychological torture by the authorities of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the state of Mexico. Consequently, this Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity (humane treatment) and the right not to be subjected to torture contained in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and in Articles 1 and 6 of the IACPPT, to the detriment of Daniel García Rodríguez. B.2. Investigations into the alleged acts of torture 223. As noted above, the authorities did not investigate the mistreatment that may have constituted torture, which was denounced by Daniel García Rodríguez on April 11, 2002, when was brought before a judge for the first time (supra para. 72). 224. Regarding the investigations into the acts of torture denounced by Reyes Alpízar on October 25, 2002, it is on record that a preliminary investigation was not opened until December 29, 2006, that is, nearly four years later. The State pointed out, without being challenged, that in the context of this investigation, more than 500 procedures were carried out (supra para. 107). In addition, as noted in the chapter on facts, the investigation culminated on May 3, 2021, with the decision not to proceed with a criminal prosecution (supra para.112). 225. In turn, within the framework of the criminal proceedings, starting in 2007, the torture allegedly suffered by Reyes Alpízar, which had been reported in 2002, was investigated. In that regard, faced with the contradictory expert opinions, the court ordered the appointment of third party experts (supra para. 210). However, although these third-party expert opinions were submitted, along with two psychological expert assessments confirming that Reyes Alpízar was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder typical of the consequences of torture, which are particularly relevant to acts of torture that occurred a long time ago, there is no indication that they were taken into account by the competent court to continue with the investigation. -58-