56 testimony of the lawyer of the accused (supra para. 43.e.), as well as the statements of the mother (supra 43.j.) and of Mr. Cantoral-Benavides himself (supra para. 43.a.), it is noted that on different occasions the Peruvian authorities were asked to investigate the facts related to alleged mistreatment or torture (supra para. 63.u.) which have been proven in this case (supra para. 106). 188. However, the documents and the testimonies contained in the file reveal that the administrative and judicial authorities in Peru did not make a formal decision to initiate a criminal investigation of the alleged commission of the crime of torture, and that they did not conduct such investigation (supra para. 63.u.) despite the existence of evidence of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and of torture committed to the detriment of Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides. 189. Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention Against Torture clearly sets forth the obligation of the State to proceed as a matter of routine and immediately in cases such as the present case. In this regard, the Court has held that “in proceedings regarding violations of human rights, the defense of the State cannot lie on the inability of the complainant to submit evidence which, in many cases, cannot be obtained without the cooperation of the State.” 74 The State, however, did not fulfill said obligation in this case. 190. The Court concluded, after studying the State’s violation of Article 5 of the Convention, that the State, through its public agents, had subjected Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (supra paras. 104 and 106). Therefore, it is clear that said State did not effectively prevent such acts, and that, by not investigating same, failed to punish those responsible for same. 191. Consequently, the Court concludes that the State violated, to the detriment of Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides, Article 2, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention Against Torture. XVII APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) 192. As regards the application of Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Commission asked the Court to order that: a) Peru make full reparations to Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides for the serious material and moral injury caused to him and, as a consequence, order his immediate release and payment of fair compensation to him; and b) Peru pay the expenses incurred by the relatives of Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides and the petitioners in this case. 193. For its part, the State alleged that: 74 cfr. Villagrán-Morales et al. Case, supra note 48, para. 251; Gangaram-Panday Case, supra note 11, para. 49; Godínez-Cruz Case, supra note 10, para. 141, and Velázquez-Rodríguez Case, supra note 10, para 135.