29 108. The IACHR similarly notes that despite the fact that Mr. Quispealaya told the authorities on several occasions that he had been threatened and intimidated in the hopes that he would change his version of the facts, and that companions who had witnessed the events (with the exception of one) had also been intimidated so that they would also change their version (see the complaint filed before the Public Prosecutor on February 28, 2002 and the complaint filed before the Omudsman’s Office on February 4, 2004), the competent authorities did not adopt any protective measures in their favor, nor did they initiate an investigation into the events. In the same sense, the State has not provided any information that would indicate that it responded to Ms. Vilcapoma Taquia’s request for a restraining order for herself and her family against Juan Hilaquita Quispe on November 25, 2002. Furthermore, the psychological evaluation that the Medical-legal Institute performed on Mr. Quispealaya on June 11, 2002 indicated that a noncommissioned officer physically assaulted him with the butt of an FAL in January of 2001 and that this person constantly abused him and had hit him with a stick previously. 109. The Commission observes that the allegations reflect a pattern of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment that occurred inside military structures, purportedly originating in a deeply rooted and erroneous interpretation of military discipline, as the Ombudsman of Peru identified in its Report No. 42. In this sense, as stated in the section of the present case devoted to context, the Ministry of Defense itself recognized in an internal Army communication of 1999 that, despite the measures taken to prevent disciplinary infractions, acts of abuse of authority had significantly increased. 110. Additionally, the Commission notes that in the resolution of the Supreme Council of Military Justice of November 17, 2005, which overturned the judgment issued in first instance of August 19, 2004 (which had declared that the crime of abuse of authority to the detriment of Valdemir Quispealaya had not been proven), it was considered that proof existed of noncommissioned officer Juan Hilaquita Quispe’s responsibility, which had not been properly considered by the lower court during the oral hearing, such as: the affidavit of Technician Valeriano Calderon, who assisted Mr. Quispealaya at the firing range, before the civil courts; the medical report prepared by Dr. Zapana, ophthalmologist of the Military Hospital; the failure to evaluate the statement of Dr. Carlos Paz, who indicated that in the present case, the loss of vision in the right eye was due to a contusion in the region of the right eye; the declaration of soldier Edwin Wilfredo Huayra Aranciai, who was beside Mr. Quispealaya when he was beaten; and the continuous threats that Mr. Quispealaya had received. 111. The Commission observes that despite the fact that the Supreme Council of Military Justice decided in the resolution of 2005 to transfer the file to the lower court so that it could carry out more indepth investigations, and the fact that the Ombudsman reported a general context of presumed torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in the context of performing military service in the year 2002, no additional steps were taken until the case file was transferred to the civil courts in 2007, and these similarly failed to take into account the aforementioned context. 112. The Commission similarly observes that as a result of the blow to Mr. Quispealaya’s right eye, and as the medical report of September 28, 2002 reveals, Mr. Quispealaya was admitted to the Central Military Hospital of Lima on July 14, 2001, where he lost the vision in his right eye in spite of the operation he received, and he was released on September 5, 2002, almost 13 months later. In this sense, the Commission highlights that the medical reports that are included in the file suggest that Mr. Quispealaya could not recover his vision as a result of a severe and advanced traumatic injury given the time that had transpired, which the State could have avoided if it had guaranteed Mr. Quispealaya the opportunity to report the torture he had suffered without having to fear for his life.