39 164. Regarding the requirements of intentionality and the existence of a specific purpose or aim, the Commission believes that the circumstances in which the arrest occurred involve elements that it would be useful to examine. 165. The police report indicates that more than nine officers went to Mr. Ruano Torres’s home, where they had to use force because he “resisted arrest.” The State of El Salvador told the Commission that the use of violence against Mr. Ruano Torres was “necessary.” In contrast, the alleged victim states that around twenty police officers came to his home to arrest him, and at no point did he resist; on the contrary, he was asleep after working all day on the remodeling of a school. This was corroborated by his wife’s testimony. 166. In addition to the fact that the State did not demonstrate the actual existence of the purpose it invoked for the violence used, the Commission notes that the police report of the arrest states that “Mr. Ruano Torres was known to be dangerous.” The Commission notes that this statement by police, in addition to exposing Mr. Ruano Torres to an unwarranted situation of risk and danger to his physical integrity, constitutes an additional indication that the violence used was not intended to neutralize a risk of resistance arising at the specific time but rather that the police had already assumed an element of danger in the design of the operation. In addition, the Commission notes that according to the statements given by Mr. Ruano Torres and his wife, the police officers participating in his arrest accused him of being Chopo. Also, the alleged victim stated that the police made death threats to force him to confess to the media that he was a kidnapper and that he used the alias Chopo. 167. All previous elements infer that the actions taken by the police agents during the arrest of Mr. Ruano Torres had a purpose other than that indicated by the State. In this regard, the Commission considers that the objective was to reduce the physical and psychological endurance of Mr. Ruano Torres, and even to obtain a confession or self-identification as alias Chopo. 168. In light of all the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there are adequate grounds to classify the violence used José Agapito Ruano Torres as acts of torture in violation of Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof. 169. In addition, the Court has ruled that a person under illegal arrest or arbitrary arrest is “in an exacerbated situation of vulnerability, creating a real risk that his other rights, such as the right to humane treatment and to be treated with dignity, will be violated.”203 Accordingly, the Commission believes that although there is no evidence to indicate unfavorable conditions at the prisons where he was held, merely being arbitrarily deprived of freedom for more than twelve years on account of a trial that lacked due judicial guarantees affected his right to mental integrity. The Commission therefore concludes that the State did violate Article 5.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to José Agapito Ruano Torres. 2. The investigations conducted regarding these facts 170. According to the duty of guarantee in Article 5 of the American Convention, states are subject to the obligation of preventing, investigating, and punishing the facts placed before them.204 In addition, the Inter-American Court has ruled as follows: 203 I/A Court H. R., Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, Judgment of August 18, 2000, Series C No. 69, para. 90. 204 I/A Court H. R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C No. 4, para. 174.