be seen.” 191 Regarding this affirmation, this Court refers to the Istanbul Protocol, according to which pain is a symptom and its “intensity, frequency and duration […] should be recorded.” 192 130. Finally, the Court notes that in proceedings at the domestic and InterAmerican levels, the victims and other witnesses 193 stated that while Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel were detained in the municipality of Pizotla, they were unable to communicate with their families to let them know how they were, or where they were being taken. 194 Also, in the proceeding before this Court, the victims indicated that “on the night of the day [of their arrest], they did not drink water, they were not given anything to eat, and those who brought food were not allowed to pass all this took place at the river.” 195 131. Despite the foregoing, this Court notes that, in the instant case, the inquiry was opened more than three months after the allegations of torture against Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel, on May 7, 1999, were first mentioned (supra para. 74). In addition, the Court notes that this investigation was initiated at the express request by the petitioners, on August 26, 1999, during the criminal proceeding conducted against them. 196 Although during the criminal proceeding conducted against 191 Cf. Expert opinion rendered by expert witness Juana Ma. Gutiérrez Hernández at the public hearing, supra note 162. 192 Cf. Istanbul Protocol, supra note 149, para. 169. 193 In addition, a witness reported that “they were taken to the edge of the Pizotla river, [...] where they were held face down in the water; then, nobody knows what the Army did next to Rodolfo and Teodoro, because they did not let anyone go.” Cf. Testimony rendered by Silvino Jaimes Maldonado before the Fifth District Court on October 26, 1999 (Criminal Case 61/99) (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XXIV, page 10237). Similarly, another witness who was questioned about the distance she was from the victims while they were in the river, stated that “it was around sixty meters outside my house where I saw them detained.” Cf. Testimony given by Cresencia Jaimes Maldonado, supra note 61, pages 10245 and 10246. Finally, a third witness stated that Mr. Montiel “was held next to Teodoro at the river’s edge, face down in the wet sand, his hands behind him, but [she] could not see whether his hands were tied there [since she was] about fifty meters away, (...) at home.” Cf. Testimony of Esperanza Jaimes Maldonado before the Fifth District Court on October 26, 1999 (Criminal Case 61/99) (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XXIV, pages 10252 and 10253). 194 In particular, Mrs. Ubalda Cortés Salgado stated that on May 2: “[The soldiers] would throw stones to make [Mr. Cabrera and Montiel] come out [[the soldiers] and they asked me where they had gone [...] later I went back into my house and I returned about an hour later, and a woman there told me that my husband had been arrested, and I went to look and realized that they had him on the ground lying face down with his hands behind his back [...] then they put Rodolfo Montiel and Teodoro [Cabrera] into a helicopter and [I asked the soldiers] to let me talk to him to know where they were taking him, and they replied that I had no reason to talk to him, and to look for him afterwards.” Cf. Testimony of Ubalda Cortés Salgado, supra note 61, pages 10072 and 10073. She also stated: “they were at the [river] bank, we got closer and looked from that woman’s backyard. I went over to the plum trees; they asked me what I was doing and I asked […] to cut some plums, but it was really so that I could get closer and see what they were doing to them. They had them lying on the sand.” Cf. Affidavit rendered by Mrs. Ubalda Cortes Salgado on June 15, 2010 (File of attachments, volume III, page 1208). The Court notes that the direct criminal amparo [relief] ruling rejected the testimony of Mrs. Ubalda Cortés Salgado, because “[...] her partiality and intent to benefit her husband RODOLFO MONTIEL FLORES is evident, since it went beyond the statement made by the accused when she emphasized that the Captain told her that if she did not accompany him to look for them, he was going to throw a grenade to kill them; that they set fire to the area where the accused were in order to force them out and threw stones at them, circumstances which the accused do not mention; also it is not credible that if the soldiers were pursuing her husband and his companions and she had been told that if they did not come out from their hiding place they would be killed, she would go home and come back an hour later.” In addition, it argued that "there is no logical explanation regarding why she returned to her home for an hour if she was not living in that community.” Cf. Judgment of August 21, 2002 issued by the First Collegiate Tribunal, supra note 148, pages 15130 and 15131. 195 Cf. Statement rendered by Mr. Rodolfo Montiel Flores at the public hearing, supra note 177. 196 Cf. Constitutional confrontation hearings of August 26, 1999, supra note 86, pages 10157 and 10158. 51