70. In addition, with regard to the events of June 19, 2004, the Commission stated that, according to the information available, while Gustavo Ravelo, Jesús Ravelo, Luisa del Carmen Barrios, Elbira Barrios and the minors Oscar José Barrios and Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño were detained, the police used physical violence against the first three and the against the minors. Furthermore, the victims’ mental and moral integrity was affected by the verbal threats and insults and the shot fired by the police officers, which caused them profound fear because of the danger of being attacked or killed. Moreover, the Commission observed that the State did not provide any information on the reasons for the detention, or why the children Oscar José Barrios and Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño had been taken to a police station on that occasion. Thus, it considered that the State had failed to fulfill its obligation to respect and guarantee the rights to personal liberty and personal integrity of Jesús Ravelo, Gustavo Ravelo, Elbira Barrios, Luisa del Carmen Barrios, Oscar José Barrios and Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño. Consequently, the State violated the rights embodied in Articles 5, 7(1), 7(2) and 7(3) of the American Convention to the detriment of Jesús Ravelo, Gustavo Ravelo, Elbira Barrios and Luisa del Carmen Barrios, and the rights embodied in Articles 5(1), 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5) and 19 of the Convention to the detriment of Oscar José Barrios and Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño, all in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention. 71. The representatives asserted that the deprivations of liberty indicated by the Commission were not carried out in accordance with the requirements and conditions established in domestic law. Also, the State has not provided any documentary evidence with regard to these events and the arrests are not registered in the police records. Furthermore, international standards on the deprivation of liberty of children were not met with regard to the minors Oscar José Barrios and Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño; their parents were not informed of their detention, and they were not allowed to communicate with their families. Therefore, their deprivation of liberty was illegal. The representatives concluded that the State had violated Articles 5, 7 and 19 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Oscar José Barrios, Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño and Rigoberto Barrios, and Articles 5 and 7 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Luisa del Carmen Barrios, Elbira Barrios, Gustavo Ravelo and Jesús Ravelo. Lastly, they asserted that the detentions, attacks and threats against Jorge Antonio and Rigoberto Barrios “should be analyzed in the context of vulnerability exacerbated by the illegality of their detention, because they were minors,” and that “the severity of these acts and the context of persecution against the family in which the acts occurred signify that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention against Torture to the detriment [of the two youths].” 72. The State did not submit specific arguments in this regard, but maintained that it had not violated the rights to personal integrity or to personal liberty of members of the Barrios family, and that it had not failed to comply with its international obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention. ii. Facts 73. On March 3, 2004, at about 10.30 a.m., Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño and Rigoberto Barrios, 16 and 15 years of age, respectively, were detained by hooded police officers and taken, separately, in a beige car to a site near the Guárico River.77 The police handcuffed 77 Cf. Complaint filed by Rigoberto Barrios before the Forensic and Scientific Crime Investigation Unit on March 11, 2004 (file of attachments to the answering brief, tome I, attachment 4, folio 4801), and Record of interview with Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño by the Forensic and Scientific Crime Investigation Unit on March 11, 2004 (file of attachments to the answering brief, tome I, attachment 4, folio 4804). 28