43 The State Parties undertake to prevent and punish torture in accordance with the terms of th[e Inter-American] Convention [against Torture]. Article 2 For the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish. Article 6 In accordance with the terms of Article 1 [of the Inter-American Convention against Torture], the States Parties shall take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their jurisdiction. Article 9 The States Parties undertake to incorporate into their national laws regulations guaranteeing suitable compensation for victims of torture. 106. In the previous chapter, the Court found that the State violated Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri’s right to personal liberty by detaining them unlawfully and arbitrarily and by not submitting them to judicial oversight (supra para. 100). In this chapter, we must establish whether during the period when both Gómez Paquiyauri brothers were detained under police custody, before their lifeless bodies were received at the San Juan Hospital, their right to humane treatment -set forth in Article 5 of the American Convention and in Articles 1, 6 and 9 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture- was violated. 107. In the instant case, the State expressed that it “condemns all types of aggression within its territory against citizens’ right to humane treatment, and therefore in the case of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers, the Peruvian courts have punished those responsible of said crime, through due process.”90 108. On other occasions, this Court has established that a “person who is unlawfully detained 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.”91 Likewise, this Court has pointed out that even if the unlawful detention has only lasted a short time, it is sufficient to constitute a violation of physical and moral integrity according to the standards of international human rights law,92 and that, in the presence of these circumstances, it is possible to infer, even when there is no other evidence in this respect, that the treatment 90 Reply of the State to the application de the Inter-American Commission and to the written brief containing pleadings, motions, and evidence filed by the representative of the alleged victims and their next of kin (file on the merits and possible reparations, volume II, leaf 254). 91 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, para. 87; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, para. 96; Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 68, para. 150; and Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 26, para. 90. 92 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, para. 87; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, para. 98; Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 68, para. 128; and Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 26, paras. 82 and 83.