question therefore that would follow is, who then inflicted the injuries that were subsequently found on the Victims? 166. The Victims‟ allegation is also consistent with the forensic reports which were eventually issued for each of the Victims. The FMA report, following the examination of the First Victim on 5 July 2005, nearly nine months after his injuries were sustained, noted “healings” and “dark discolorations” on his right and left forearms, right elbow, left thigh, upper left leg and left hip joint. The Second Report of the FMA of 27 May 2006, following examination of the Second and Third Victim also nearly nine months after their torture, found that the Second Victim had a “darker intersecting discolorations” all over his back, as well as an unhealed fracture in a left foot toe and that the Third Victim had dark discolorations in the chest, abdomen and upper arms.86 However, in both cases the government examiners concluded that the long time lapse between being examined and the injuries made it impossible to determine with certainty the reason, manner or time of such injuries.”87 167. The question therefore that begs the mind is who then is responsible for the dark colorations found on the bodies of the Victims? Certainly this could not have been inflicted by the Victims themselves, especially when it has been established that during all this time they were under the custody of the Respondent State‟s agents. 168. It is a well established principle of international human rights law, that when a person is injured in detention or while under the control of security forces, there is a strong presumption that the person was subjected to torture or ill-treatment. As the European Court of Human Rights has recently noted: 86 See above, n. 77 and accompanying text. 87 Ibid. Formatte 49