The other approach is to directly shift the burden of proof where the persons who claim that they have suffered torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment were under the full control of the state. In these situations, the state bears the burden of proving that the victim was not subject to violations of physical integrity while under custody and, if such evidence is not presented before the organs of the system, then the Commission or the Court may find that the state is responsible for a violation of Article 5. An example is the Case of Juan Carlos Abella and others, which is also known as the Case of La Tablada, decided by the Inter-American Commission. In that case, the persons had been detained, I believe by the Argentine federal police; there was an analysis of the amount of wounds that they had suffered before and after their detention, or the moment they were captured, and several days after their capture. The state was not able to provide the evidence showing how those wounds were inflicted. Thus, the Commission found in that case that the state was responsible for the violations of Article 5.25 There is another case where the analysis was similar, the Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez against Honduras, where the person was found dead days after being captured by the military in Honduras. Since there was evidence that the person was in normal physical condition at the time of his deprivation of liberty, and considering that the state was not able to prove how the damage to the dead body occurred when it was found, it was not able to prove what happened to him. Accordingly, both the Commission and the Court found that the burden of proof was not met; they were not able to prove what had happened to Mr. Sánchez, and therefore established that Honduras was responsible for the violation of Article 5.26 complete, and these documents did not allow the Court to establish very clearly that he had been subjected to torture, including anal rape at the hands of the police with the participation of a private individual. In that case, the Commission and the Court found that the state had to conduct a full investigation. Specifically, the Court talked about reopening the domestic proceedings and expediting them following the manual on the effective investigation and documentation of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, that is, the Istanbul Protocol.28 The same was found in the Case of Cabrera García and Rodolfo Montiel Flores29 against Mexico, where the individuals were also allegedly subjected to torture. Both the Commission and the Court found that the lack of an effective investigation, or the lack of full analysis into the facts when faced with serious allegations, generated responsibility for the Mexican State. Again, at the request of the Commission, the Court asked that training programs be put in place applying and teaching the application of the Istanbul Protocol to Mexican authorities. Conclusion As a final comment, I would say that we can see in these cases, some of the advances in the Inter-American System. I would also say, being hopeful, that it is less likely today than it was thirty or forty years ago, that a government in one of the member states at the OAS can decide and apply systematic torture as a means of political control or for any other purpose. But, of course, many challenges remain because torture has not been eradicated. I believe that the most effective way to fight it is by investigation and punishment on the part of authorities, but also by training civil servants, the authorities, and the population in general to understand this crime and to understand its absolute prohibition. Hopefully, with this there will be better investigation and punishment and the road toward full eradication will be clear. There are other cases: the Case of Gutiérrez Soler against Colombia, where the Commission and the Court found that there was not enough evidence, but decided that the absence of such evidence was directly the responsibility of the state.27 This is so because even though there were documents, they were not Remarks of Hari Phuyal* Introduction I am happy to be here to serve the experience of Nepal on torture cases. I will start out with the general situation of Nepal. Nepal ratified major international human rights treaties in the 1990s, including the Convention against Torture (CAT) in 1991.30 However, Nepal did not declare the competence of the CAT Committee under Article 22 and in accordance with Article 28.31 Additionally, Nepal did not include any reservations on Article 20,32 which provides the jurisdiction of the Committee on inquiries in systematic practice of torture. Since we cannot file complaints to the Committee, the Advocacy Forum-Nepal (Advocacy Forum, AF)—along with other organizations—used * Hari Phuyal is a lawyer in Nepal and represented Advocacy Forum-Nepal. 37