B.2. Rights to personal liberty and personal integrity of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto 90. The Court has indicated that the essential content of Article 7 of the American Convention is the protection of the liberty of the individual against any arbitrary or unlawful interference by the State.113 The Convention has recognized that the principal guarantee of individual liberty and safety is the prohibition of unlawful or arbitrary detention or imprisonment. In relation to unlawful detention, the Court has indicated that “although [the State] has the right and the obligation to ensure state security and maintain public order, its powers are not unlimited, because it has the duty, at all times, to apply procedures that are in keeping with the law and that respect the fundamental rights of all those who are subject to its jurisdiction.”114 91. In addition, the Court recalls that the Convention explicitly recognizes the right to personal integrity, which is a right the protection of which encapsulates the main purpose of the peremptory prohibition of torture and of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.115 The Court has also indicated that any use of force that is not strictly necessary due to the conduct of the person detained constitutes an attack on human dignity in violation of Article 5 of the American Convention.116 92. Furthermore, the Court notes that, pursuant to its case law, it should be recalled that “in any case of the use of force [by State agents] that has resulted in the death or injury of one or more persons, the State has the obligation to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of what happened and to disprove the allegations concerning its responsibility with adequate probative elements.”117 Similarly, this Court’s consistent case law recognizes that a presumption exists that the State is responsible for the injuries revealed by anyone who has been in the custody of State agents.118 93. In the instant case, as already mentioned, Robert Díaz Loreto was already dead when he was admitted to the Corinsa Social Security clinic, at least one hour after having been injured by police officers of Aragua state. According to the autopsy, his body was full of mud and “sewage,” he had a “moderate cerebral edema with compression grooves in […] the hippocampus and orbital lobes,” and the “oral cavity with the presence on the gums of a black granular substance” also within the thorax, the respiratory tract, in the teeth, the esophagus, the trachea and, according to the forensic evidence, “it was already entering the lungs” (supra para. 37). This evidence indicates that Robert Díaz Loreto was subjected to physical abuse, probably while in the custody of the police (supra para. 82). Also, as indicated, the authorities failed to investigate those findings in Robert’s body, and did not provide a satisfactory explanation about them. Consequently, this Court finds that the State is responsible for a Cf. Case of the "Juvenile Re-education Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 223, and Case of Romero Feris v. Argentina, para. 76. 113 Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 124, and Case of Espinoza González v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288, para. 117. 114 115 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 126, and Case of Ruíz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2019. Series C No. 384, para. 120 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 57, and Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2018. Series C No. 368, para. 193. 116 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 134 and Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia, para. 88. 117 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 311, and Case of Munárriz Escobar et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 20, 2018. Series C No. 355, para. 73. 118 -29-