52 to what is established in the Istanbul Protocol, according to which pain may be the only manifest complaint and “the intensity, frequency and duration […] should be noted.”192 130. Lastly, the Court observes that at the domestic and Inter-American levels, the victims and other witnesses193 declared that while Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel were detained in the municipality of Pizotla, they were unable to communicate with their families in order to establish how they were doing or to where they were being transferred.194 Also, in the proceeding before this Court, the victims indicated that “the night of the day [of the detention], they did not drink water, or were given something to eat, and they did not let through those who brought food, all that in the river.”195 131. In spite of what was mentioned, this Tribunal notes that, in the instant case, the investigation was initiated more than three months after the allegations of torture committed against Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel on May 7, 1999, were first mentioned (supra para. 74). In addition, the Court observes that this investigation was initiated upon express request by the complainants, made on August 26, 1999 within the criminal proceeding conducted against them.196 Although in the criminal 192 Cf. Istanbul Protocol, supra note 149, para. 169. 193 Moreover, a witness stated that “they were taken to the side of the Pizotla river, [...] where they were held face down in the water, and what the Army did next with Rodolfo and Teodoro is not known, because they did not let anyone go.”.” Cf. Testimony given by Silvino Jaimes Maldonado before the Fifth District Court on October 26, 1999 (Criminal Case 61/99) (record of annexes to the answer to the application, volume XXIV, folio 10237). Similarly, another witness who was questioned about the distance she was from the victims while they were in the river, stated that “it was about some sixty meters outside of my house where I saw that they were detained.”.” Cf. Testimony given by Cresencia Jaimes Maldonado, supra note 61, folios 10245 and 10246. Lastly, a third witness indicated that Mr. Montiel “was held next to Teodoro on the edge of the river over wet sand, face down, his hands behind him, but [she] wasn’t able to see whether his hands were tied there [since she was] some fifty meters away, (...) at home.”.” Cf. Testimony of Esperanza Jaimes Maldonado before the Fifth District Court on October 26, 1999 (Criminal Case 61/99) (record of annexes to the answer to the application, volume XXIV, folios 10252 and 10253). 194 Specifically, Mrs. Ubalda Cortés Salgado stated that on May 2: So that [Mr. Cabrera and Montiel] would come out [[the soldiers] threw stones and they came and asked me where they had gone [...] later I went back to my house and I went back after about an hour, and a lady there told me that my husband had been detained, and I went to look and realized that they had him on the ground lying face down with his hands behind his back [...] afterward, they boarded Rodolfo Montiel and Teodoro [Cabrera] onto a helicopter and [I asked the soldiers] to let me talk to him to know where they were going to take him, and they replied that I had no reason to talk to him, and to look for him afterwards.”.” Cf. Testimony of Ubalda Cortés Salgado, supra note 61, folios 10072 and 10073. She also stated: “they were at the bank of [the river], “we got closer and looked from that lady’s backyard. I went to the plum plants; they asked me what I was doing and I asked […] to cut some plums, but it was so that I could get closer and see how they were being held. They had them lying on the sand.” Cf. Affidavit rendered by Mrs. Ubalda Cortes Salgado on June 15, 2010 (record of annexes, volume III, folio 1208). The Court notes that the direct criminal amparo [relief] ruling denied the testimony of Mrs. Ubalda Cortes Salgado, given that "[...] her partiality and intention to benefit her husband RODOLFO MONTIEL FLORES is evident, given that she rendered a statement beyond what was asserted by the accused when she emphasized that the Captain told her that if she did not accompany him to look for them, he was going to throw a grenade to kill them; that they set fire where the accused were in order to force them out and threw stones at them, circumstances to which the accused do not make reference; it is also incredible that if the soldiers were chasing her husband and companions and she was already told that if they did not come out from where they were hidden, they were going to kill them, she went to her home and come back an hour later.” In addition, it argued that "there is no logical explanation regarding why she went back to her home for an hour if she was not a neighbor of that community.” Cf. Judgment of August 21, 2002 issued by the First Collegiate Tribunal, supra note 148, folios 15130 and 15131. 195 Cf. Statement rendered by Mr. Rodolfo Montiel Flores at the public hearing, supra note 177. 196 Cf. Constitutional confrontation hearings of August 26, 1999, supra note 86, folios 10157 and 10158.