symptoms of post-traumatic stress or depression were detected in Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, or any psychological disorder characteristic of torture cases.” 124 In February and March of 2008, Reyes Alpízar denounced irregularities in the PGJEM’s expert opinions 125 as well as mistreatment by the psychologists. 126 The judge accepted his statements “as given,” and said that these would be considered “at the appropriate procedural moment.” On June 5, 2008, the Court ordered the appointment of third party experts. 127 94. On December 11, 2007, the Human Rights Commission of the state of Mexico (hereinafter “CODHEM”) performed a medical examination on Reyes Alpízar. 128 It stated that “from a medical forensic point of view, there are no technical or medical elements that enable us to prove or rule out the allegations made by the victim.” 129 This report was endorsed by the PGJEM 130 and, together with the examinations performed by the PGJEM, was contested by the alleged victims for not complying with the Istanbul Protocol. 131 95. On June 5, 2008, the Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance ordered the appointment of third party experts. 132 The psychologist T.R.S. and the sociologist I.G.R. concluded that Reyes Alpízar presented “signs and symptoms typical of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), lasting personality changes, generalized depression and anguish […] that undoubtedly correspond to cruel and inhuman treatment and punishment characteristic of torture.” 133 The psychologist M.E. also found that he “presented signs and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder typical of torture.” 134 In a hearing on February 17, 2010, the third expert S.L.S.M., indicated that he did not have “technical-scientific elements to support the view that physical torture had occurred in the 124 Psychological report. Expert Services, Psychology. Criminal case 88/2002 Tlalnepantla, Mexico, May 7, 2008. Contains 114 pages, page 105 (evidence file, folios 1564 to 1679), and Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance. Voluntary appearance of expert witness. Tlalnepantla, State of Mexico, May 12, 2008 (evidence file, folios 1680 to 1681). 125 It was alleged that these assessments were carried out by the same professionals who would have checked him during the arraigo, with mockery and jeers when he was “without a robe, without a bed or sheet and in the prison yard and without the support of anyone” with “taunts, sarcasm, mockery and comments.” Brief of Reyes Alpízar Ortiz. Criminal case 88/02. February 18, 2008 (evidence file, folios 1682 to 1699). 126 Cf. Brief of Reyes Alpízar Ortiz. Criminal case 88/02. March 31, 2008 (evidence file, folios 1700 to 1710). Cf. Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance. Evidence hearing. Tlalnepantla, state of Mexico, June 5, 2008 (evidence file, folios 1774 to 1777), and Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance. Evidence hearing. Tlalnepantla, state of Mexico, June 19, 2008, “Evidence hearing 19.6.2008” (evidence file, folios 1779 to 1782). 127 128 Cf. Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance. Order. Tlalnepantla, state of Mexico, April 4, 2008 (evidence file, folios 1716 to 1718). 129 Cf. General Inspectorate II Northeast. File. CODHEM/NJ/1413/2007. Official letter No. 400C132300/2200/2008. Certified copy of medical examination. Tlalnepantla de Baz, Mexico, March 26, 2008 (evidence file, folios 1719 to 1721). Cf. Certified copy of medical examination of Reyes Alpízar performed by CODHEM on December 11, 2007 (evidence file, folios 1722 to 1739). 130 131 Cf. Brief of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz. Criminal case 88/02. October 9, 2008 (evidence file, folios 1740 to 1772). 132 Cf. Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance. Evidence hearing. Tlalnepantla, state of Mexico, June 5, 2008 (“Evidence hearing 19.6.2008”, evidence file, folios 1773 to 1782). It should be noted that Article 230 of the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico, established that: When the opinions of the experts are in disagreement, the public servant who carries out the proceedings shall appoint a third expert, ensuring whenever possible that the person appointed is from outside the institution or office of the experts in disagreement, and shall summon them to a meeting, in which they or those who have replaced them and the third party expert shall discuss the points of difference, and the result of the discussion shall be recorded in the minutes. Psychological report. Criminal case 88/2002. Mexico, Federal District, August 11, 2009. Contains 74 pages, Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance (evidence file, folios 1783 to 1856). Evidence hearing and Board of Experts. Tlalnepantla, state of Mexico, November 20, 2009 (“Evidence hearing and Board of Experts 20.11.2009”) (evidence file, 1857-1873). 133 134 Psychological expert report. Criminal case 88/2002. Extortion, Fraud, Aggravated Homicide, Others. Toluca, Mexico, October 20, 2009. Contains 14 pages, page 9. Evidence hearing and Board of Experts 20.11.2009 (evidence file, folios 1874-1888). -27-