stated that he was there “a day or a day and a half,” and before the Court in 2013, he indicated “a day or two, I don’t remember.” 574 First, the Court considers that this difference does not invalidate all of Mr. Quijano’s testimony, especially when the two statements are consistent on the substantial and more important aspect, which is that, after they were suspected of being members of the guerrilla, they were interrogated insistently on the second floor of the Casa del Florero and subsequently transferred to the North Canton. In addition, the Court considers that, when examining this type of testimony, it is necessary to take into account the special situation of tension, stress and other specific circumstances that could affect the deponent. In this regard, it underlines that the Istanbul Protocol expressly establishes that “disorientation of time and place during torture is a generally observed finding.” 575 379. The Court considers it has been proved that, following the retaking of the Palace of Justice, Mr. Quijano was taken to a military garrison in the North Canton at around 2 p.m. on November 7, 1985. In addition, it notes based on the evidence in the case file that Mr. Quijano was transferred by the B-2 of the 13th Brigade to the Sixth Police Station on November 7, 1985. 576 Therefore, for the effects of this Judgment, the Court will consider that Mr. Quijano remained in the North Canton for a few hours, instead of a day or a day and a half, which is also consistent with the fact that he was released on November 8, 1985, from the Sixth Police Station as recorded in the release order issued by the SIJIN on that date. 577 380. The State also questioned the testimony of Mr. Quijano because Mr. Arrechea had indicated that the treatment was “good” or “normal.” 578 However, this Court notes two aspects: in his 1985 testimony, where Mr. Arrechea indicated that the treatment was “good,” he also indicated that he was retained for two days and that he had been interrogated on the second floor of the Casa del Florero where “they made the usual accusations; that they had seen [him] in the taking of Corinto, in the taking of Florencia, and that [he] was a guerrilla.” In addition, in his 2007 statement, he expanded his description of the events and expressly added that, in the Casa del Florero, they were “kept with the hands on their head […] and against the wall,” and when the prosecutor asked him about the treatment received, he stated that “[d]espite the psychological pressure to which 574 Cf. Testimony of Orlando Quijano of January 8, 1986, before the 41st Itinerant Criminal Investigation Court (evidence file, folio 24131); Testimony of Orlando Arrechea Ocoro of July 18, 2007, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 15217); Testimony of Orlando Quijano of June 2, 2006, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 1264), and affidavit made on November 7, 2013, by Orlando Quijano (evidence file, folio 35895). 575 In this regard, the Istanbul Protocol specifically establishes that “[t]he examiner must remember that statements on the length of the torture session by the torture survivor are subjective and may not be correct, since disorientation of time and place during torture is a generally observed finding.” United Nations, Istanbul Protocol, Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 2004, para. 141. 576 In this regard, the case file contains a note from the B-2 stating that: “based on the pertinent instructions for identification and legal procedures, the following individuals who were found near the Palace of Justice in suspicious circumstances during the occupation of that building by the M-19 on [November 6, 1985,] are being sent to that command accompanied by this note: […] Quijano Orlando.” Cf. Military Forces of Colombia, Note No. 06040-COBR13B2-267 (evidence file, folio 20169). 577 Cf. SIJIN, Release order of November 8, 1985 (evidence file, folio 20171). 578 The State also referred to two other individuals, Patricio Torroledo and Saúl Antonio Arce, who had also been detained and had presumably declared that the treatment was “good” or “normal.” The Court notes that Colombia did not provide these statements to the file; thus it is unable to verify this allegation. These individuals were cited in the judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota and in the respective dissenting opinion (from which the State took its allegation), and the dissenting opinion transcribes some extracts where it appears that Mr. Torroledo had indicated that the treatment was “good,” even though he also stated that, in the Casa del Florero, he was kept with his hands up against the wall. Nevertheless, the Court considers that the assertions made regarding Orlando Arrechea’s definition of the treatment would also apply to the supposed statements by these individuals. 131