111 magnitude of the force used, the type of weapons, explosives, and gases used against the inmates that were in pavilions 1A and 4B of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison. 278. The Court refers to these considerations on the factors that affect the seriousness of the facts. It is clear that the use of that force by state agents against the inmates implied the breach of their right to humane treatment. 279. This Tribunal has stated that the simple threat of the occurrence of a behavior prohibited by Article 5 of the American Convention, when it is sufficiently real and imminent, may constitute in itself a transgression of the norm dealt with. To determine the violation to Article 5 of the Convention, not only physical suffering but also psychic and moral anguish must be taken into account. The threat of suffering a serious physical injury may constitute a form of “psychological torture.”156 280. To determine the seriousness of the injuries and the suffering caused the Court will take into consideration the expert reports offered before the Court as well as any other relevant evidence. 281. The effects described by the expert witness Quiroga (supra para. 186) with regard to some gases that are the most used are consistent with the statements offered by inmates that lived the attack, who described burning sensations, asphyxia, and breathing difficulties. 282. In what refers to the use of white phosphorous gas bombs, the expert witness Peerwani indicated that when this chemical product comes into contact with human tissue, “it causes very severe burns”. In his experience as a forensic expert he has observed that these burns penetrate human tissue “until [they reach t]he bone.” Likewise, these white phosphorous bombs produce a lot of smoke, which “is very dangerous”, and their use “is not recommended within closed environments.” The witness Gaby Bálcazar referred to the effect caused by these bombs, stating “that they could not even breath, you felt you body burning, like if your body wanted to leave you,” and she referred to the measures they were forced to adopt due to that (supra para. 187). The witness Raúl Basilio Gil Orihuela indicated that when said chemical comes into contact with the human body it produces a burning sensation in uncovered areas, the nasal cavities, as well s asphyxia and chemical “burning” of internal organs and skin (supra para. 186). 283. It has been proven that 185 inmates were injured as a result of “Operative Transfer 1”, thus affecting their physical integrity. All inmates against who the attack was directed experimented the suffering inherent to an attack of such magnitude, which includes both the inmates that died as well as those that survived (injured and uninjured). 284. The attack was carried out with very harmful weapons, with explosions, gases and smoke, with indiscriminate gunshots, in complete darkness, in a closed area and in overcrowded conditions. The inmates suffered injuries due to bullets, explosions, 156 Cfr. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 21, para. 119; Case of Tibi, supra note 150, para. 147; and Case of 19 Merchants. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 149. In the same sense, Cfr. Eur.C.H.R., Soering v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A Vol. 161, para. 111; and U.N., Human Rights Committee, Miguel Angel Estrella v. Uruguay (74/1980), pronoucement of March 29, 1983, paras. 8(3) and 10.