examination of his case. Likewise, if there is an accusation or well-founded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, the States Parties shall guarantee that their respective authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal proceedings. Thus, on several occasions the Court has considered that when there is a failure to investigate alleged acts of torture, that also entails a breach of those articles of the IACPPT."104 83. The Inter-American Court has held that the Convention against Torture envisages two situations that activate the State’s duty to investigate: “on the one hand, whenever an accusation is filed and, on the other hand, whenever there is a well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within State jurisdiction. In these situations, the decision to initiate and conduct an investigation is not up to the State to make, that is to say, it is not a discretional power; instead, this duty to investigate constitutes an imperative obligation of the State that derives from international law and cannot be disregarded or conditioned by domestic acts or legal provisions of any nature.” 105 84. Additionally, the Court has considered that in the investigation of torture, the procedures must “be conducted in accordance with international standards for documentation and for the construction of forensic evidence proving the commission of torture acts, ... and especially with those in the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the Istanbul Protocol”).106 In this regard the UN Committee against Torture has established that in the face of allegations of torture, an examination by an independent medical practitioner is required in all cases. The medical assessment must include: (i) case information; (ii) clinician’s qualifications (for judicial testimony); (iii) Statement regarding veracity of testimony (for judicial testimony); (iv) background information; (v) allegations of torture and ill-treatment; (vi) physical symptoms and disabilities; (vii) psychological history/examination; (viii) photographs; (ix) diagnostic test results; (x) consultations; (xi) interpretation of findings; (xii) conclusions and recommendations; (xiii) statement of truthfulness; (n) statement of restrictions on the medical evaluation/investigation; (xiv) clinician’s signature, date, place; (xv) relevant annexes. 107 85. Finally, the Court has established that “the reasonableness of the period of time mentioned in Article 8.1 of the Convention must be assessed in relation to the total time demanded by criminal proceedings. This time period runs from the first procedural act addressed to a specific person allegedly responsible for a given offense, until final and non-appealable judgment is rendered.”108 In order to examine reasonableness of time in a criminal proceeding, the Commission notes that a case-by-case analysis must be made in light of the particular circumstances of the case and, in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Convention, consideration must be given to four elements: (i) the complexity of the case; (ii) the procedural activity of the interested party; (iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities; and (iv) the effects that the delay in the proceeding may have on the legal situation of the victim.109 86. In the present case, according to the available information, the Commission has established that the alleged victim did not have a medical evaluation near the date that the torture occurred. According to the information available, it was eight days later that Mr. Jorge López was reportedly visited by a doctor and a judge, to whom he reported that he had been tortured. The Commission does not have available to it the medical assessment that was carried out on that occasion. However, it notes with concern that, according to the alleged victim's statement, he was transferred to the "cuadrilátero" as punishment and allegedly offered money to withdraw I/A Court H.R., Case of Ruiz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of October 10, 2019, Series C. No. 385, par. 173. 105 Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 23, 2010, par. 240. 106 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia, Judgment of September 12, 2005, Series C. No. 132, par. 100. 107 See Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment “Istanbul Protocol,” Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations, New York and Geneva, 2001. 108 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, Judgment of October 30, 2008, Series C No. 187, párr. 107; Baldeón García Case v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of April 6, 2006, Series C. No. 147, par. 150; and Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua, Judgment of January 29, 1997, par. 77. 109 I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 27, 2008, Series C. No. 192, par. 155. 104 21