38 vehicles, took out their 15 occupants, ordered them to form a line on the road, and shot them. Six of them died and nine were injured. The European Court found that they were victims of a behavior that, due to its nature, represented a serious risk to their lives despite the fact that they survived the attack. Likewise, in the case of Makaratzis v. Greece the European Court stated that: …the degree and type of force used and the intention or aim behind the use of force may, among other factors, be relevant in assessing whether in a particular case the State agents’ actions in inflicting injury short of death are such as to bring the facts within the scope of the safeguard afforded by Article 2 of the Convention… In the light of the above circumstances, and in particular the degree and type of force used, the Court concludes that, irrespective of whether or not the police actually intended to kill him, the applicant was the victim of conduct which, by its very nature, put his life at risk, even though, in the event, he survived. Article 2 is thus applicable in the instant case.110 127. This legal analysis applies to the present case. The perpetrators of the massacre made sure that the members of the Judicial Commission were in a state of complete defenselessness, by tying them up and locking them in two vehicles, such that they could proceed in a surprising manner to shoot indiscriminately for minutes. In case any of them had not died, they gave the “finishing shots”. The manner in which the massacre was executed through an attack with firearms of the indicated magnitude, leaving the victims without any possibility of escape, constituted a threat to the life of all the 15 members of the Judicial Commission. The fact that three of them were only injured and not killed is merely fortuitous. As indicated by surviving victim Arturo Salgado, the paramilitaries said “lets go; they’re all dead,” before leaving the place of the massacre.111 128. For these reasons, the Court finds that the right to life enshrined in Article 4 of the American Convention also applies with regard to the three survivors. C.1) Violation of the right to personal integrity of the members of the Judicial Commission 129. In accordance with the State’s admissions, its partial acknowledgement of responsibility, this Tribunal’s findings with regard to the events prior to the execution of the members of the Judicial Commission, and the circumstances endured by the three survivors, the three survivors suffered physical, mental, and moral suffering which violated their right to personal integrity under Article 5 of the American Convention. The representatives alleged that these acts should be recognized as psychological torture. 130. With regard to the treatment endured by the 15 members of the Judicial Commission during the hours of detention before and during the massacre, the representatives alleged that these events should be recognized as psychological torture based on the following elements: the circumstances the victims endured prior to their deaths; the long desperate moments the survivors endured in their efforts to save their own lives; the magnitude of the violence used throughout the operation; and the victims’ suffering due to the genuine threat 110 Cf. Eur.C.H.R., Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], Judgment of December 20, 2004, App. No. 50385/99, para. 51 and 55. The Spanish version of this opinion uses a translation by the Secretariat of the Court. The above is the original. 111 Cf. testimonial statement offered by Arturo Salgado Garzón before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held on January 31 and February 1, 2007.