statements regarding the time and the methods of torture suffered [by Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel]. Furthermore, the medical history of the patients coincides with the development of the symptoms described by medical science.” 166 Nevertheless, they recommended that “in any case, […] additional examinations be performed on both individuals in order to determine […] the full repercussions of the physical and psychological harm caused by the torture and to propose the appropriate treatment.” 167 122. The domestic courts and the State 168 considered that this expert opinion was insufficient to prove torture, because: i) they alleged a lack of impartiality by Dr. Tramsen and Dr. Tidball-Binz, since the alleged victims regarded them as trusted advocates and, “in order to gain access to the detention center, the representatives “accredited [them] […] as members of their organization’s legal department [which was not necessary, given that] there are procedures for authorizing the medical evaluation [...] of detainees;” ii) the conclusions reached by the expert witnesses constituted inaccurate and general assessments, which did not take into account the evidence provided in the criminal proceeding; also the conclusions of the experts’ opinion were not supported by any scientific study but only by a physical examination, 169 and iii) the report was prepared a year later. Regarding the first argument, the Court reiterates the comments made in its Order of August 23, 2010, namely that “under Mexican law, the mere appointment of a ‘person of trust’ does not necessarily imply the ‘material conduct of the defense’” and that “there is no record of a defense proceeding conducted by Mr. Tramsen; rather, there is evidence that his intervention was limited to his expert opinion” (supra para. 26). In the second place, the Court considers that Messrs. Tramsen and Tidball-Binz complied with the minimum requirements established in the Istanbul Protocol since they prepared an accurate report describing the circumstances of the interview, background, physical and physiological test, opinion seemingly influenced his observations and the reconstruction of events.” During the public hearing, Dr. Tramsen stated that this examination was performed according to the methodology established in the Istanbul Protocol and by the International Rehabilitation Center for Tortured Victims. Cf. Physicians for Human Rights- Denmark. The case of Rodolfo Montiel Flores and Teodoro Cabrera García, Mexican farmers and environmental activists, July 29, 2000 (File of attachments to the application, volume XIX, pages 8374 to 8383). 166 Cf. Physicians for Human Rights- Denmark. Case of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel, supra note 165, page 8382. 167 Cf. Physicians for Human Rights- Denmark. Case of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel, supra note 165, page 8383. 168 The State attached an “Analysis of the expert opinion furnished as evidence”, undated, in which the Public Prosecutor’s Office (PGR) “made an analysis of the expert opinion issued by the organization “Physicians for Human Rights Denmark” and the “actions related to the different medical certifications […] in [the case file].” Based on this, the PGR concluded, inter alia, that the expert opinion prepared by Messrs. Tramsen and Tidball-Binz: i) “in no way conforms to what a forensic medical expert opinion should contain methodologically, apart from the fact that it was not offered as expert evidence with the formalities required by the Federal Code of Criminal Procedures;" ii) "it lacks of scientific-technical methodology;" iii) "[i]t does not contain the information contemplated by international standards;” iv) “it is dogmatic since it does not select or order information obtained from the version of the patients, search and identification of fingerprints, indicia or after-effects of physical injuries and/or psychological disorders closely related to the facts denounced;” v) “[t]he medical investigation was carried out 14 months and 27 days after the facts and was presented in the informative style of a Report, describing the alleged experiences of the petitioners;” vi) “it did not [take] into account the existing reports and medical certificates," and vii) that "the evidence is not consistent with the alleged narration of the facts, therefore, the physical-clinical-psychological diagnosis does not suggest a truthful allegation of physical or mental torture.” Cf. Analysis of the expert report exhibited as evidence. Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic (PGR) without date (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XLV, pages 22471 to 22477). 169 Cf. Judgment issued on August 14, 2002 by the Second Collegiate Tribunal, supra note 84, page 14464. 46