23 68. Therefore, the Court considers it is adequate to analyze in the present case if there was a violation of the right enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Escué Zapata, his relatives and the Community. A) With respect to Mr. Escué Zapata 69. According to the evident furnished and the State's confession, the victim was hit by the militaries77 while he was being accused of being guerrillero and pressed to confess such condition and the alleged possession of firearms. Furthermore, he was taken to the mountains and immediately before his execution, he was asked to run, which the victim did not want to do for fear of being executed, which in effect occurred after that (supra para. 38). Thus, apart from the physical maltreatment committed against the victim while he was detained, the victim fearly had to run for a while without knowing his destiny and the outcome of the military operation, fostered by a group of armed militaries and feeling fear for his safety. 70. Furthermore, the relatives of the victim pointed out that the body of Mr. Escué Zapata was found with signs of torture, fractures of inferior limbs, bumps on the body and the head totally destroyed.78 On the contrary, Mr. Victorino Mestizo Martínez, Police inspector who removed the body, affirmed the inexistence of ecchymosis or other signs of bumps in the body and stated that the victim was apparently not tortured nor tied up.79 71. Regarding such facts, the Court notes according to the statements of the victim's relatives and the public officer mentioned above, as well as the statements rendered by some militaries,80 it is clear that Mr. Escué Zapata was injured after he was taken from his home to the place of the execution. The type of injuries he suffered from or their seriousness cannot be considered proven. Notwithstanding, given the fact of the State’s confession of the facts at issue and the lack of a proper investigation of the event,81 the Court considered the facts are proven. 77 Cf. Statement rendered by Bertha Escué Coicue on December 4, 2002 (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Prosecutor’s file, Folder 1, page 1905); Statement rendered by Omaira Escué Coicue on December 4, 2002 (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Prosecutor’s file, Folder 1, page 1915); statement rendered by Marco Tulio Cañas Torres, on February 24, 2006 (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Prosecutor’s file, Folder 3, page 2334); statement rendered by Francisco Javier Bedoya Aguirre, on March 18, 2006 (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Prosecutor's file, Folder 3, page 2402); statement rendered by Oscar Iván Arias Herrera on March 18, 2006 (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Prosecutor's file, Folder 3, pages 2410 and 2411) and affidavit rendered by Bertha Escué Coicue on January 16, 2007 (record of the merits, Volume III, page 606). 78 Cf. Statement rendered by Mario Pasu on May 17, 1999 (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Prosecutor's file, Folder 1, page 1781); statement rendered by Mr.Aldemar Escué Zapata on July 1, 1999 (record of Appendixes of the answer to the complaint, Prosecutor’s file, Folder 1, page 1805); statement rendered by Etelvina Zapata in the public hearing before the Inter-American Commission held on October 17, 2002; statement rendered by Mr. Aldemar Escué Zapata on November 30, 2002 (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Prosecutor's file, Folder 1, page 1912); affidavit rendered by Mario Pasu, on January 16, 2007 (record of the merits, Volume III, page 645), affidavit rendered by Bertha Escué Coicue on January 16, 2007 (record of the merits, Volume III, page 606) and affidavit rendered by Ayénder Escué Zapata on January 16, 2007 (record of the merits, Volume III, page 652). 79 Cf. statement rendered by Victorino Mestizo Martinez on December 13, 2002 (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Prosecutor’s file, Folder 1, page 1873). 80 Cf. Statement rendered by Oscar Iván Arias Herrera, on March 18, 2006 (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Prosecutor’s file, Folder 3, pages 2410 and 2411). 81 The Court has established that the State is responsible, in its condition of guarantor of the rights enshrined in the Convention, for the observance of the right to humane treatment of every person under its custody. As a consequence, it is possible to consider that the State is responsible for ill-treatment exhibited by a person who has been in the custody of State agents, if the authorities are incapable of demonstrating that a proper