Valenzuela Ávila was in his cell he was repeatedly taken out by people dressed in plain clothes [who] took him away and he [Mr. Valenzuela] came back more and more beaten, This is what [h]e states, since [Mr. PRA] was in different cells, [Valenzuela] was physically ill as he had blows all over his body and on occasions when we talked [he] told that they had tortured him with cigarettes in the part of the neck and in his genitals” (supra para. 86). 200. In addition to the above, as already indicated in the medical and psychological reports issued on June 15, 2005, by Mrs. Edna Karina Vaquerano Martínez and Mr. Juan Cristóbal Aldana Alfaro (supra para. 191), it was concluded that the alleged victim presents “the characteristics of a tortured person both from a physical and psychological point of view.” 201. Based on the foregoing and as the victim himself reported the alleged torture and abuse and threats he suffered during his incarceration, through the writ of habeas corpus, which is consistent with what was stated by another prisoner and the medical reports , this Court considers it proven that Mr. Valenzuela suffered serious injuries while he was being held in State custody, which were intentionally perpetrated in order to obtain information about the death of the Prosecutor SJR. In addition, the Court notes that despite the fact that the State was aware of said acts, it did not attempt to guarantee his right to humane treatment, nor did it immediately initiate an investigation in this regard. Therefore, in consideration of the elements considered, the Court finds that Mr. Valenzuela was subjected to acts of physical torture and mistreatment. 202. Therefore, this Court finds that Mr. Valenzuela, after his detention on May 27, 1998, was subjected to acts of physical torture and sexual abuse and, furthermore, in June 2001 he suffered acts of physical torture again, when he remained confined in the Men’s Preventive Detention Center. Consequently, the Court concludes, without prejudice to the criminal responsibility that must be settled in the domestic sphere, that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 5(1) and 5(2) and 11(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, as well as in violation of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Tirso Valenzuela Ávila. Furthermore, the representatives alleged the violation of Article 7 of the IACPPT, this Court, based on the decision, considers that it is not necessary to rule on the alleged violation. 203. The representatives also argued that Mr. Valenzuela Ávila did not receive medical treatment during his stay in the detention center, following the torture he suffered when he was detained and recaptured. In this regard, the Court has established that “in order to protect and ensure the right to life and the right to humane treatment of persons deprived of their liberty and in its role as guarantor of those rights, the State has an ineluctable obligation to provide those persons with the minimum conditions befitting their dignity as human beings, for as long as they are interned in a detention facility.”162 On this point, the Court has developed a set of obligations for the fulfillment of this duty, among them, is the obligation to provide medical attention, through any appropriate treatment that is necessary.163 It has also indicated that the absence of “adequate and timely medical treatment or care” constitutes a violation of Article 5 of the Convention. 164 204. For this Court, from the facts and the evidence provided, it can be deduced that the State did not provide adequate medical care at the time that Mr. Valenzuela requested it due 162 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para, 159. 163 Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 156, and Case of Chinchilla Sandoval et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 29, 2016. Series C No. 312, para. 28. 164 Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, supra, para. 157. 49