87 complaints of torture are founded. This happens, even though the complaints are extremely detailed and, in the different proceedings examined, replicate the methods supposedly used by the Judicial Police (such as, electric prods or "chicharras", blankets soaked with water, suffocation with plastic bags, etc.), and appear to be confirmed by unequivocal reports issued by private doctors and/or official institutions certifying the physical signs of ill-treatment incompatible with the hypothesis of self-injury, as well as by photographs and other forms of proof. […] The systematic corollary to the complaints of unlawful deprivation of liberty and of torture, followed by the failure to investigate them by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and by the judges, is the acceptance by the court officials of the statements made by the accused and witnesses in these conditions as evidence of valid charges against them, in order to create and support the accusation. In Chihuahua, proceedings are conducted […] based fundamentally on the selfincrimination of the accused and on the denunciations of the co-accused and witnesses.380 345. Similarly, the Ciudad Juárez Commission indicated that “the expert opinions offered […] were designed to justify a hypothesis of the Public Prosecutor’s Office.”381 In 2002, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Independence of the Judiciary referred to the torture of five members of a gang, accused of some of the crimes.382 Also, in a 2003 report, Amnesty International documented at least three other cases in the city of Chihuahua in which torture was used to obtain confessions from those suspected of murdering women.383 346. Based on the above, the Court accepts the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility that the investigation against Mr. García and Mr. González meant that “other lines of inquiry were not followed up on” and that “the determination that [these individuals] were not criminally responsible meant that the investigating authorities lost credibility in the eyes of the next of kin, and resulted in the loss of evidence and clues merely because of the passage of time.” In addition, the Tribunal underscores that the lack of the due investigation and punishment of reported irregularities encourages investigators to continue using such methods. This affects the ability of the judicial authorities to identify and prosecute those responsible and to impose the corresponding punishment, which makes access to justice ineffective. In this case, these irregularities resulted in the re-opening of the investigation four years after the facts had occurred, which had a serious impact on its effectiveness, especially in view of the type of crime that had been committed, where assessment of evidence becomes more difficult with the passage of time. 4.2.2.3. Alleged unjustified delay and absence of substantial progress in the investigations 347. The Commission alleged that “there was no follow-up to key testimony with information relevant to the investigation.” The representatives agreed with this and added that “no one has been accused of the murders” and that, in the case of Claudia Ivette González, the State “had made no progress when it appeared before the Court.” 348. The State indicated that, during the second stage of the investigations, “the investigations were re-opened [using] the original attestations of the measures taken following the discovery of the bodies,” including “the missing person reports, the 380 Cf. Report of the United Nations Committee of International Experts, supra note 76, folios 1878, 1879, 1883 and 1891. 381 Cf. Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Tercer informe de gestión, supra note 101, folio 9011. 382 Cf. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, supra note 74, folio 2100. 383 Cf. Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2273.