41 Commission has stated that “when the State permits investigations to be conducted by the entities with possible involvement, independence and impartiality are clearly compromised [...] The consequence of such compromise is insulation of those presumably responsible from the normal operation of the legal system.”210 176. Thus, as the Court has said: “In those cases where alleged torture or mistreatment have been claimed, the time elapsed till the performance of the pertinent medical examinations is essential in order to unquestionably determine the existence of damage, specially when there are no witnesses other than the perpetrators and the victims themselves, and consequently, the evidence may be scarce. Thus, it may be concluded that in order for an investigation regarding facts 211 involving torture to be effective, the same must be promptly conducted.” 177. Similarly, the United Nations Committee against Torture has ruled that whenever claims of torture are made, an examination must be carried out by an independent physician in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol.212 According to that instrument, the medical examination must contain: (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 illtreatment, (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.213 178. In the case at hand, the Commission notes that no medical examinations were performed other than the one carried out at the time of Mr. Ruano Torres’s arrest, even though the situation was reported. Indeed, the only medical examination performed was carried out prior to the complaints filed by Mr. Ruano Torres. That examination was carried out by personnel belonging to the same agency as the police officers accused of committing the acts of torture and, as such, could have been lacking in impartiality and suitability.214 The Commission notes that one of the State’s submissions claims that many of the police officers who participated in the arrest of Mr. Ruano Torres had died or no longer belonged to the National Civilian Police, an argument that in no way justifies the failure to investigate. 179. Consequently, the Commission concludes that through the total failure to follow up on or investigate torture allegations, the State did violate the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the right to humane treatment and Article 1.1 thereof. 210 IACHR, Report No. 10/95, Case 10.580, Admissibility and Merits, Manuel Stalin Bolaños, Ecuador, April 3, 1996, para. 48. 211 I/A Court H. R., Case of Bueno Alves, Judgment of May 11, 2007, Series C No. 164, para. 111. 212 Committee against Torture, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention, CAT/c/MEX/CO/4, February 6, 2007, para. 16(a). 213 See: Manual on 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. 214 IACHR, Application to the I/A Court H. R. in the Case of Teodoro Cabrera García and Rodolfo Montiel Flores, Case 12.449, Mexico, June 24, 2009, para. 110.