77. The Court notes that, during the first detention on March 3, 2004, the minors were arrested by hooded agents who kept them in custody, both outside an official place of detention and in two police stations. At these places, they were assaulted and threatened with death by police agents (supra para. 73). Regarding the deprivation of liberty that took place on June 19, 2004, which began on a Guanayén street, while the agents took the youths José Antonio Barrios Ortuño and Oscar José Barrios to the Barbacoas Police Station, after a certain time the police allowed Gustavo and Jesús Ravelo, Luisa del Carmen Barrios and Elbira Barrios to continue on their way and they left (supra para. 74). In this regard, on the whole, the victims’ statements regarding these events before the Public Prosecution Service and Scientific Investigation Unit, were consistent and congruent when describing the facts, the conduct of the police officers, the length of the detention, and the assaults and threats received. 78. Moreover, Venezuela has not denied that these detentions occurred, and has not presented information on their legality. The file of evidence provided by the State does not contain a court order or proof of flagrante delicto, or the reasons or justification for any of the detentions; in addition, it does not show that those involved were advised of the possible reasons for the said deprivations of liberty. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the detention and the subsequent release of the minors were registered officially, or that the youths were able to communicate with their parents or next of kin (supra para. 74). This fails to meet the requirements of article 44 of the Venezuelan Constitution on personal liberty (supra para. 76) and, therefore, means that the deprivations of liberty were illegal and contrary to the American Convention. In addition, in the case of the March 3, 2004, detention of the minors Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño and Rigoberto Barrios, given the specific circumstances indicated above (supra para. 73), the evident illegality in itself involved arbitrariness. 79. The foregoing allows the Court to conclude that the deprivations of liberty of Jesús Ravelo, Gustavo Ravelo, Luisa del Carmen Barrios, Elbira Barrios, Rigoberto Barrios, Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño and Oscar José Barrios were illegal and violated the right to personal liberty established in Articles 7(1), 7(2) and 7(4) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to their detriment. In the case of the minors Rigoberto Barrios and Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño, the said deprivation of liberty (supra para. 73 and 78) was also arbitrary, in violation of Article 7(3) of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to their detriment. Nevertheless, although the representatives and the Commission referred to the lack of immediate judicial review of the detention of the youths, they have not submitted any arguments or evidence that would allow the Court to determine whether, in addition to the obligations established in article 44(1) of the Venezuelan Constitution, the police agents were obliged to notify or inform a competent judge of the detentions immediately. In this regard, the representatives referred to a law that was not in force at the time of the events so that, in the absence of factual data or more specific arguments, the Court will not examine these allegations. 80. However, the Court reiterates that the vulnerability of a person who is detained is exacerbated when the detention is illegal or arbitrary and the person is completely defenseless, which creates an evident risk that other rights may be violated, such as the right to physical integrity and to be treated with dignity.91 In this case, the Court observes that the complaint filed by Rigoberto Barrios and the statement given by Jorge Antonio Barrios before the Scientific Investigation Unit were consistent in maintaining that, on March 3, 2004, they were both taken, separately, by hooded police officers to a site near the 91 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 43, para. 166, and Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 119. 31