40 106. In this regard, the Court observes that article 7(4) of the Convention refers to two aspects: i) the information, whether in oral or written form, on the time of the detention and ii) the notification, which must be served in writing, of the charges. It does not spring from the case file that the victims had been informed on the reasons for their arrest at the time of their detention; therefore, the State violated article 7(4) of the American Convention to the detriment of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. VIII RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT [PERSONAL INTEGRITY] IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT RIGHTS AND THE OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH TORTURE 107. In relation to article 5 of the American Convention,141 the Commission considered in its application that “the evidence concerning the […] the acts of torture against the victims is inconclusive;” though it also indicated that it “neither asserts nor […] denies the existence of torture.” Nevertheless, it specified that “there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to allow the Commission to […] infer that the victims were subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.” In its final arguments, the Commission pointed out that “based on the evidentiary elements furnished in the proceeding before the Court, [it] is possible to determine with more precision the acts contrary to the personal integrity” of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. 108. The representatives indicated that torture was committed because there were a set of acts systematically perpetrated during several days aimed at making the victims accept the charges brought against them and sign self-incriminating confessions, what caused them a grave suffering. They added that “the domestic authorities dismissed the allegations of torture” based on medical certificates that “did not comply with any standard, much less with the Istanbul Protocol.” The Commission and the representatives indicated that the statements of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel were ongoing, similar and without any contradictions. 109. The State argued that the several medical certificates and expert opinions “are suitable and sufficient to discredit the petitioners’ claims.” Likewise, the domestic judicial authorities completely disproved the allegations of the victims, and stated that their statements contain inconsistencies that are “substantial and are not owing to the mere use of language.” The State added that the “fifteen medical certificates” were issued “in the ideal time to determine, in each case, the existence of an irregularity.” Likewise the State underlined that “perhaps […] due to the conditions in which [t]he test [of Messrs. Tramsen and Tidball-Binz] was made, [its] opinion […] does not meet the basic scientific standards and [does not] question the medical evaluations presented,” to which it further alleged the lack of partiality of said doctors. 110. The Court will refer, first, to some proven facts in relation to: i) the statements made by the alleged victims, ii) the medical certificates in the case file, 141 Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment [Personal Integrity]) of the Convention provides that: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. […]