118. In relation to the foregoing, it should be noted that expert witness Gutiérrez Hernández indicated, in her opinion rendered at the public hearing in this case, that: “when […] a person or persons [are] arrested, the Public Prosecutor’s Office […] issues a request for a certification of physical integrity or injuries; in this regard, the doctor must examine the person and describe what he finds in terms of injuries.” “However, if an accusation of torture is made in a statement by these persons, or any other, the Public Prosecutor’s Office [...] then specifically requests and inquiry into the injuries present, but with a focus on the medical-legal documentation and this is when the guidelines set by the international standards to document torture must be complied with. To summarize, the fifteen medical certificates were prepared only for the purpose of 162 certifying the physical integrity [of the victims] and not to document torture.” 119. The above expert opinion coincides with the point made by the State itself, according to which there is a difference with “[a]nother type of intervention carried out by a forensic physician in Mexico, […] regarding the expert determination of physical torture, whose investigation and documentation guidelines are established in Agreement A/057/2003, in force since September 2003, following the Contextualization of the Istanbul Protocol […] in the country. This medical intervention, like all others undertaken by forensic physicians, requires an express written request by a judicial and/or ministerial authority and certain conditions for its application.” 120. Therefore, the Court concludes that, given their purpose, the 14 medical certificates mentioned are not sufficient, by themselves, to provide grounds for rejecting or accepting the allegations of torture in this case. However, with regard to the possible violation of the right to humane treatment [personal integrity], the Court highlights certain medical certificates, such as the one issued on May 15, 1999, which reported the presence of bruises that allegedly resulted from the blows received by Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel during their detention 163 or the certificate issued on June 4, 1999, which concluded that the injuries had occurred approximately 30 days earlier. 164 1.3. Expert opinions specifically aimed at verifying alleged acts of torture 121. The Court notes that on July 29, 2000, when the victims were already at the Social Rehabilitation Center of Iguala, Dr. Christian Tramsen and Dr. Morris Tidball-Binz, acting on behalf of the organization “Physicians for Human Rights – Denmark”, carried out a medical assessment specifically aimed at determining whether Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel had been victims of torture. Their expert opinion was issued more than one (1) year after the arrest of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. 165 It concluded that “[t]he physical results conclusively coincide with the 162 Cf. Expert opinion rendered by expert witness Juana Ma. Gutierrez Hernandez at the public hearing conducted in this case. 163 Cf. Coddehum, Detailed Affidavit of May 15,1999, supra note 153, pages 4006 to 4007. 164 Cf. Medical certificates on psychophysical condition and injuries of June 4, 1999, supra note 154, pages 2053 to 2056. 165 The expert opinion was presented in the context of the proceeding instituted by the victims in order to specifically denounce the alleged acts of torture committed against them. According to the report, Dr. Tramsen and Dr. Tidball-Binz carried out the respective medical interviews with Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel “in the reception hall of the prison director’s office […]. The physical examination [was allegedly] performed in complete privacy in a neighboring room used as a bathroom and a cellar that was sufficiently lit. [The alleged victims] were undressed for the physical examination.” They also indicated that “[d]uring the interview and the examination, Rodolfo Montiel and Teodoro Cabrera were completely conscious, and aware of time, space, location, and person, and both showed normal short and long-term memory. They answered the questions appropriately and responded coherently to relevant medical matters. However, as expected, in the case of Teodoro Cabrera, his visual impairment 45