414. The Court also notes that, even if the alleged situation of in flagrante delicto is accepted, the connection between this situation (which presumably consisted in the illegal transportation of weapons in a bus) and the accusation constantly made against Mr. Rubiano Galvis during the interrogations to which he was subjected (according to which he was a member of, or had collaborated with, the M-19 to introduce the weapons into the Palace of Justice) is unclear (supra paras. 382 and 395). 415. In addition, the Court underlines that Mr. Rubiano was not allowed to communicate with his family until eight days after his detention. His wife, Lucía Garzón Restrepo, testified that the day of his detention she went to the North Canton to ask for him; initially they denied that he was there, and the following day they told her that she could not see him. 641 According to Ms. Restrepo and Mr. Rubiano Galvis they were only able to see each other eight days after his detention, following his transfer to the Bogota Model Prison. 642 416. The Court observes that, in this case, Mr. Rubiano Galvis was detained without a court order, presumably in flagrante delicto; however, the State has not provided any evidence in this regard. During his detention he was accused of acts that had no clear or logical connection with the offense he was supposed to have committed; he was kept incommunicado for several days; initially his family was denied information on his detention and whereabouts, and there is no proof that his detention was recorded in the different State facilities to which he was transferred (the Zipaquirá military checkpoint, the Zipaquirá station, and the Cavalry School). 643 Consequently, the Court concludes, based on all the foregoing, that the detention of Mr. Rubiano Galvis was unlawful, in violation of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. In view of this conclusion, the Court does not find it necessary, in this case, to examine the alleged violations of the other paragraphs of Article 7 of the Convention that were indicated by the Commission and the representatives. B.3) Prohibition of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment 417. Article 5(1) of the Convention recognizes, in general terms, the right to physical, mental and moral integrity. Meanwhile, Article 5(2) establishes, specifically, the absolute prohibition to subject anyone to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as well as the right of all persons deprived of liberty to be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 644 The Court understands that any violation of Article 5(2) of the American Convention necessarily entails the violation of Article 5(1) of this instrument. 645 641 Cf. Affidavit made on November 5, 2013, by Lucía Garzón Restrepo (evidence file, folio 35661) and brief of Lucía Garzón Restrepo of November 22, 1985, addressed to the Head of Personnel of the Public Works Secretariat (file of evidence, folio 24144). See also, decision of the Prosecution Service of July 12, 2007 (evidence file, folios 20398 and 20399). 642 Cf. Affidavit made on November 5, 2013, by Lucía Garzón Restrepo (evidence file, folio 35661) and Affidavit made on November 5, 2013, by José Vicente Rubiano Galvis (evidence file, folio 35622). 643 Mr. Rubiano Galvis stated that they “were not included on any list in any battalion, and no one asked [their] names or anything; it was in Puente Aranda where [their] personal data was recorded.” Cf. Affidavit made on November 5, 2013, by José Vicente Rubiano Galvis (evidence file, folio 35622). 644 Cf. Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 129, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 303. 645 Cf. Case of Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 129, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 304. 145