61 97. With respect to how Juan Humberto Sánchez was treated by the State authorities during his detention, the Court deems it proven that he was subject to interrogation (supra 70.8) which, in accordance with the existing pattern at the time of the facts (supra 70.1), necessarily led to preparing and deliberately inflicting tortures to obtain information. In this regard, it should be recalled that this Court has deemed it proven that during the decade of the 1980s and into the early ‘90s, in Honduras there was a pattern of forced disappearances and extra-legal executions committed by the military forces. The latter had a special, autonomous status and acted under a certain doctrine of national security, due to which they captured persons who were “suspicious” or “dangerous” of being alleged Honduran subversives, supporters of the Salvadoran guerrilla forces or of the Sandinistas. Usually these persons were detained at night, interrogated, tortured, given a finishing shot, and buried in clandestine centers or unauthorized places. The military forces, in turn, controlled the police forces, and the judges felt intimidated from effectively investigating criminal cases in which there were allegations of human rights violations by the armed forces, and this created a climate of impunity. 98. While this Court does not have sufficient evidence to establish precisely the days or hours that Juan Humberto Sánchez was detained, due to the illegality of the detention, a brief period of detention is enough for it to constitute an infringement of his mental and moral integrity according to the standards of international human rights law.114 The Court has also stated that when said circumstances occur, it is possible to infer, even if there is no additional evidence in this regard, that treatment of the victim during his isolation was inhuman, degrading, and extremely aggressive.115 99. It has also been proven that the body of Juan Humberto Sánchez was found lifeless between two rocks in the Río Negro, with the hands and feet tied toward the back, the nose, ears and genitals severed, flayings on his back and a shot in the forehead, exiting at the base of the skull, characteristics that are in keeping with the existing pattern of human rights violations at the time of the facts (supra 70.1). According to the expert witness, Leo Valladares Lanza, these marks of violence are typical of the pattern of extra-legal executions at the time of the facts. Said expert witness stated that the practice was to “keep close watch over presumably suspicious persons and capture them without a warrant and take them to clandestine places, not authorized by law. There, they were usually interrogated, but resorting to torture. Finally, these persons were murdered, many of them with a finishing shot, hand-tied and buried in clandestine cemeteries or unauthorized places.” The characteristics of the existing pattern combine with what this Court has stated regarding the existence of a presumption of responsibility of the State for the mistreatment and torture shown by a person who has been under the custody of State agents.116 Court H.R., Case of Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25. para. 167. 114 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 128; Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note 103, paras. 82 and 83; and “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 103, paras. 162 and 163. 115 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 150; Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note 103, paras. 83, 84 and 89; and “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 103, para. 162. 116 Cf. Eur. Court H. R., Aksoy v. Turkey judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 VI, supra note 106, para. 61;. Eur. Court HR, Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December