57 129. The Commission said that it had been proven that the victims, with the exception of Erik Leonardo Chinchilla, were subjected to intentional acts that produced pain and physical and mental suffering in order to intimidate and punish them, in breach of the prohibition of torture. According to the Commission, when any person suffers any injury while in State custody it is incumbent upon the State to provide a reasonable explanation of the causes of such injury by virtue of the detainee’s particularly vulnerable circumstances. 130. Concerning the victims who survived their kidnapping, the Commission maintained that no effective investigation was conducted to determine responsibility for their injuries and that Guatemala acknowledged that they were captured by members of the Treasury Police and suffered injuries during their detention. The Commission made specific reference to Judge Trejo-Duque’s statements before this Court, in which he submitted that the injuries suffered by some victims who survived their captivity could have been produced while they were resisting arrest. In this regard, the Commission stated that [w]hat was required was not speculation but an effective judicial inquiry to establish whether violations had been perpetrated and lay the basis for the necessary judicial response. The Commission pointed out that Judge Trejo had officially taken note of the injuries suffered at the hands of State agents, including violent blows to several parts of the body, and other forms of violence that could only imply torture. The State’s expressed position shows a total reluctance to respond with due diligence to grave accusations. Four of the five victims were never even examined by a professional doctor and there is no record of any attempt to adopt elementary measures to investigate the site of the tortures denounced or to attempt to locate possible witnesses. (Footnote references have been omitted) 131. In the brief containing its final arguments, Guatemala indicated that in the case of Ms. Paniagua-Morales, Mr. Gómez-Ayala, Mr. González-Rivera, Mr. CoradoBarrientos, Mr. González-López and Mr. Chinchilla it was not responsible "on the ground that if it did not in any way participate in the persons’ kidnapping, neither was it involved in the beatings they received." Concerning Augusto Angárita-Ramírez, the State said that the blows he received, "while not desirable, could be normal, in some sense, if there is any kind of confrontation during the arrest of persons connected with narcotics traffic who obviously try to resist arrest." The State also said that Mr. Angárita filed an accusation in this regard and took advantage of his rights under Guatemalan legislation. 132. Article 5 of the American Convention establishes in this regard that 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. […] 6. Punishments consisting of deprivation of liberty shall have as an essential aim the reform and social readaptation of the prisoners. 133. Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to prevent and punish torture establish that: 1. The State Parties undertake to prevent and punish torture in accordance with the terms of this Convention. […]