157. The Commission recalls that when torture is alleged, such as in the case before us, no mechanism is available to the person to prove the acts of violence inflicted upon him. 137 158. In the instant case, the Commission notes that based on the statements of the alleged victims, the days they were at the offices of the Drug Enforcement Police and Interpol of Pichincha, they were the targets of several different acts of violence against their physical integrity. These acts include: i) beatings on their abdomen; ii) death threats; iv) cold baths in the middle of the night; v) being held on their knees with their arms held above them; and v) being stepped on their calves and feet. Said acts are described in the statements that were given both in the medical certification reports of August 9, 1994 (see paragraphs 75-83 above), and in the initial statements before a judge (see paragraphs 89 and 91 above). 159. With respect to these statements, the Commission notes that medical certification reports are found in the court case file attesting to the existence of areas of ecchymosis on several parts of the body of every one of the alleged victims (see paragraphs 76-79 above). In these certification reports, specific information is provided as to the consequences of the injuries endured by each of the detainees as follows: i) “a psychological trauma” that “has appeared and lasted until the present time” has been caused in Mr. Emmanuel; ii) in the case of Mr. Luis Alfonso Jaramillo González, these injuries “are painful and stressproducing;” iii) regarding Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles, said injuries “also constitute impactful psychological trauma;” and iv) Mr. Jorge Herrera Espinoza “complains of suffering post-traumatic headaches [cephalea].” As has been put on the record in said certification reports, the injuries inflicted on them were the result of “traumatic action of a hard blunt body and of abuses received.” The Commission notes as well that there is consistency between the conclusions and the date of origin of the alleged torture. 160. The Commission notes that the State has not denied the authenticity of the certificate reports of August 9, 1994, and therefore the Commission fully accredits the findings on the injuries endured by them. The State’s contention is that these injuries were not caused by agents of the State at the time the alleged victims gave their pre-indictment statements based on two arguments: i) that there are medical certificates in the police file, according to which the alleged victims did not present “hematomas” and “traumas;” and ii) that the pre-indictment statements were made before a prosecutor. 161. In this regard, the Commission firstly notes that the certificates of August 5, 1994, to which the State is referring, are from the Health Section of the National Police of the Provincial Office for the Drug Enforcement Police and Interpol of Pichincha, which is an entity that is administratively part of the National Office for Drug Enforcement and Interpol of Pichincha, the same office where the officials who inflicted the injuries on the alleged victims come from. Therefore, these certificates, in principle, were not issued by an independent entity. Furthermore, it is not clear what type of evaluation was conducted by the office listed as “Health” or whether it meets the minimum qualification standards to be able to identify potential signs of torture. Additionally, the Commission notes that based on the August 9, 1994 certifications, the period of incapacity inflicted on the alleged victims was up to three days –in the cases of Messrs. Emmanuel Cano, Luis Alfonso Jaramillo González and Eusebio Domingo Revelles- and, from four to eight days, in the case of Mr. Jorge Eliécer Herrera Espinoza, all of these periods “counted from the date of when they occurred.” In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds that it is reasonable to infer that these injuries were inflicted at a time consistent with the same time that the alleged victims gave their pre-indictment statements, which is August 4 and 5, 1994. 162. The Commission also finds that the fact that the statements were given before a prosecuting attorney does not constitute in and of itself evidence refuting the medical examinations reports of August 9, 1994, which are consistent with the initial statements of the victims. It must be noted that, as for the actions 137 IA Court of HR, Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 128. 38