of the prosecutor, one of the victims, Jorge Eliecer Herrera Espinoza, claimed that he was abused and that in front of the prosecutor was smacked in the face.”138 163. Another aspect to be taken into account is that, according to the documentation provided, other individuals detained in the same operation also filed complaints of having been subjected to beatings and abuses: Pablo Vargas; Óscar Hernando Acosta Ramírez; Favio Hugo Carrero Lara; Nexi Irene Calderón Tinitana; and Alba Rosario Tinitana Ludeña. What particularly caught the attention of the Commission is that in his statement Mr. Jorge Herrera claimed that his niece had “been raped by the investigators” and in the case file there are medical records that she “presents ecchymosis and luxation in the genital area which is consistent with rape received in the City of Quito […]”139 164. In addition to the foregoing, the Sate did not open any investigation to enable it to account for the origin of the injuries appearing in the medical certification reports of August 9, 1994. In this regard, the Commission reiterates that the State is the guarantor of the human rights of persons deprived of their liberty, which involves, among other things, the obligation to explain what happens to persons who are under its custody.140 In other words, in the absence of said explanation, since persons confined in a State detention facility are involved, State responsibility must be presumed as to what happens to persons under its custody.141 165. In light of the foregoing, the Commission attaches probative value to the testimony given as initial statements of the victims before a judge in the judicial proceedings, as well as to the acts that were alleged in their petitions before the IACHR, which the State has been aware of. The Commission finds that these injuries, as described, and which went un-refuted by the State and for which no satisfactory explanation was provided, make it possible to find that intense and severe damage was involved. 166. As to the elements of intent and the existence of a given purpose or aim, the Commission notes that as can be surmised from the victims’ statements, the acts of violence were perpetrated intentionally by agents of the State with the purpose of impairing the physical and mental capacity of the alleged victims and to make them sign their pre-indictment statements and plead guilty to a crime, out of fear for their lives and safety. 167. The Commission concludes that there is sufficient evidence to find that the acts meet the requirements for torture. Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the State violated the right to humane treatment as established in Article 5 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the four victims. 2. Investigations conducted into these acts 168. Pursuant to the guarantee set forth in Article 1.1 of the Convention, States have the obligation to prevent, investigate and seriously punish violations of the Convention that come to its attention.142 The component of investigation of the duty to ensure rights is closely linked to the right to effective remedies. On this topic, the Inter-American Court has established that: 138See reference to initial statement of Jorge Eliécer Herrera in Annex 31. Charging document by the Twelfth Judge for Criminal Matters of Pichincha of November 30, 1995. Pages 1519 - 1564. Annex to petitioner’s submission of November 13, 1998. 139 Annex *. Final Charging Document of the Twelfth Prosecutor for Criminal Matters of Pichincha, received on November 30, 1995 by the Office of the Clerk of the Twelfth Court for Criminal Matters of Pichincha. Annex to petitioner’s communication of November 13, 1998. 140 IA Court of HR, Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100. Para. 126. IA Court of HR, Case of the Urso Branco Prison. Precautionary Measures. Decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 18, 2002. Whereas clause 8. IA Court of HR, Case of Neira Alegría et al v. Peru. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20. Para. 65. 141 142 IA Court of HR, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 174. 39