subjected to torture. In that regard, there are several statements 95 (supra, par. 23) in which other detained officers, like Mr. López, claimed to have been tortured in a similar manner to the alleged victim, or to have seen or heard that the alleged victim had been handcuffed, blindfolded, made to lie face down, and beaten at the 11th Precinct. Furthermore, according to the statement of an agent assigned to the 11th Precinct, Mr. Lopez was blindfolded and kept handcuffed in the holding cells. 96 Likewise, Mr. Lopez, said that the acts alleged in the petition affected his personality and that in the recent years he had received psychological treatment. 73. In relation to the response of the State, the Commission observes that, according to the statement of the witness Judge Juan Carlos Paredes, it was at least eight days after his arrest before Mr. López received a visit from a judge and a medical examiner, whom he reportedly told that he had suffered torture. There is also information regarding an examination carried out on July 11, 2000, almost two months after the alleged torture. In addition, the Commission notes that the Paraguayan State told the IACHR that "according to allegations by the Public Prosecution Service, acts of torture were indeed allegedly perpetrated against several of those detainees, including the petitioner." 97 Furthermore, the investigation y domestic proceedings have not concluded. Consequently, in light of the foregoing, the Commission observes that the State has not yet provided a satisfactory explanation for the allegations and findings that suggest that torture was carried out, based either on timely medical examinations or on an investigation of the complaints that effectively disproved the allegations. 74. The Commission notes that the court concluded in its judgment that none of the witnesses offered the court positive certainty of the existence of the event itself, "since there were opposing, contradictory and ambiguous versions or testimonies." Likewise, it dismissed or cast doubt on the occurrence of certain events due to a lack of consistency regarding the type of material used to bandage the detainees, the object with which the beatings were administered, and the times at which certain events allegedly occurred. The IACHR finds that the statements made by those who were detained at 11th Precinct were broadly consistent in affirming that there were people who were tortured inside the precinct, and that those testimonies that affirmed that there was no evidence of mistreatment were provided by police officers assigned to the unit or whose involvement was as personnel who had some type of contact with the detainees. The Commission also notes that said court dismissed the evidence regarding the list of persons for whom an arrest warrant was issued under the state of emergency because it considered that it “ha[d] nothing to do with the existence of the act being tried." 75. Furthermore, the Commission observes with regard to the victimology report of the Victim Assistance Department of the Public Prosecution Service, the court noted that the document was only partially legible, “so it is impossible for the court to evaluate it positively, although it is true that a conclusion regarding Jorge López contained in it finds that he has difficulty accepting his discharge from the police and it makes no reference to the supposed physical duress that is under examination,” and considered that the findings of the report were not supported by technical and scientific methodology. In this regard, it is striking that, if the document was only partially legible, the court did not order a better copy of it, given its evidentiary significance. 76. Based on the foregoing, the Commission considers it appropriate to give evidentiary weight to the abovementioned evidence, taking into account that the beatings and mistreatment were intended to pressure the alleged victim to testify to the involvement of persons in an attempted coup d'état, and that he was even threatened with involving his wife in the criminal proceedings against him. Accordingly, the Commission considers that the requirements for establishing that torture was indeed carried out have been met. At the same time, as mentioned, the State has not yet concluded an investigation, and a final decision has not yet been rendered on the criminal proceeding that refutes the allegations and evidence of events that occurred while Mr. López was in its custody. 77. In similar fashion, the Inter-American Court, having established a failure of diligence in the investigation of indications of state participation, has found it: See, for example, statements by Juan Escurra Monzón, Prospero Arevalos López, Higinio Pérez Benitez, Emilio López, Rafael Sosa, and Lorenzo Genes. 96 Statements by Diosnel Ferreira. 97 State's observations brief of September 11, 2008, p. 2. 95 19