As of that time, his forced disappearance ceased. However, this does not affect the classification of the acts perpetrated against him during the time he was disappeared as forced disappearance, 564 regardless of its duration. 369. This Court has also established that Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas was executed while he was in the custody of State agents, which constitutes extrajudicial execution. Consequently, taking into account the considerations made in the previous chapter, the State violated the rights recognized in Articles 7, 5(1), 5(2), 4(1), and 3 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas. The obligation to ensure the said rights by a diligent and effective investigation will be analyzed in Chapter XI of this Judgment. X RIGHTS TO PERSONAL LIBERTY AND TO PHYSICAL INTEGRITY IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND TO ENSURE RIGHTS A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 370. The Commission argued that Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci, Eduardo Matson Ospino and Orlando Quijano were rescued from the Palace of Justice on November 6, 1985, and taken to the Casa del Florero where they were detained. Then, “[a]fter being classified as ‘special’ and accused of collaborating with the guerrilla, they were taken to different police and military garrisons.” According to the Commission, “[t]here, they were interrogated and received death threats to make them “confess” to their participation in the events of the Palace, while being subjected to ill-treatment.” The Commission also determined that José Vicente Rubiano Galvis was detained from November 7 to 23, 1985, by members of the Army and that “he was also subjected to ill-treatment and accused of being a ‘subversive.’” According to the Commission, the detention of these victims “took place in the context of a pattern of abuse of power aimed at interrogating and torturing them in order to obtain information and incriminate them as members of the guerrilla,” so that it was arbitrary in violation of Article 7(3) of the Convention. In the specific case of José Vicente Rubiano Galvis, the Commission underlined that the Military Forces should not have competence in matters that are the jurisdiction of the Judicial Police. It also considered that these detentions violated paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Article 7 of the Convention because they were carried out without a court order and without informing the victims of the reasons for their detention; because “they were not brought before a judge immediately, but remained throughout their detention in the custody of the Army,” and because, “since the detentions took place in the context of a pattern of abuse of power, […] the detainees were unable to file a simple and effective remedy” to protect their rights to personal liberty, to physical integrity, and to life. In addition, the Commission concluded that “the circumstances in which the detention was carried out […] constitute per se a violation of their mental and moral integrity,” because “the victims were detained illegally and arbitrarily by members of the Army.” The Commission also found that “sufficient evidence exists to conclude that Yolanda Ernestina Santodomingo Albericci, Eduardo Matson Ospino, Orlando Quijano and José Vicente Rubiano Galvis were subjected to torture while in the State’s custody”; hence the State is responsible for the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 371. The representatives argued that Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci, Eduardo Matson Ospino and Orlando Quijano were evacuated from the Palace of Justice and taken to the Casa del Florero, where they were classified as “special hostages.” They affirmed that Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and Eduardo Matson Ospino “were victims of physical and 564 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 195. 126