67 151. With regard to the treatment of Bámaca Velásquez by the State authorities during his detention, the Court has taken into account a series of testimonial evidence given by former guerrillas, which may be classified as direct evidence, which indicates that Bámaca Velásquez was tortured by State agents at the various military bases where he was kept captive. The witness, de la Roca Mendoza, declared that Bámaca Velásquez was beaten and he heard his cries in the night (supra 93 C h); while the witness, Cabrera López, saw him swollen, tied up and with bandages on his extremities and his body (supra 93 C a). 152. As this Court has often repeated, in cases of forced disappearance, the State's defense cannot rely on the impossibility of the plaintiff to present evidence in the proceedings since, in such cases, it is the State that controls the means to clarify the facts that have occurred in its jurisdiction and, therefore, in practice, it is necessary to rely on the cooperation of the State itself in order to obtain the required evidence102. 153. that In the same way, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has indicated the burden of proof cannot fall solely on the author of the communication, considering, in particular, that the author and the State Party do not always have equal access to the evidence and that, frequently, it is only the State Party that has access to the pertinent information [...]. In cases when the authors have presented charges supported by attesting evidence to the Committee [...] and in which subsequent clarification of the case depends on information that is exclusively in the hands of the State Party, the Committee may consider that those charges are justified unless the State Party presents satisfactory evidence and explanations to the contrary103. 154. The probative elements gathered while processing this case lead the Court to consider proved the abuses that, it is alleged, were committed against Bámaca Velásquez during his reclusion in various military installation. The Court must now determine whether such abuses constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Clearly, it is important to state that both types of acts are strictly prohibited under any circumstance104. 155. The Inter-American Court has observed that when a State faces a situation of internal upheaval, this should not result in restrictions in the protection of the physical integrity of the person. Specifically, the Court has indicated that [… a]ny use of force that is not strictly necessary to ensure proper behavior on the part of the detainee constitutes an assault on the dignity of the person [...] in violation of Article 5 of the American Convention105. 102 Cf. Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note 56, para. 55; Neira Alegría et al. Case. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 65; Caso Gangaram Panday, supra note 86, para. 49; Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 53, paras. 141 and 142; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 53, paras. 135 and 136. 103 Communication Hiber Conteris v. Uruguay, No. 139/1983, paras. 182-186; [17th to 32nd sessions (October 1982 to April 1988)]. Selection of Decisions of the Human Rights Committee adopted in accordance with the Optional Protocol, Vol. 2, 1992. 104 105 Cf. Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note 56, para. 95. Cf. Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note 56, para. 96; Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, supra note 50, para. 197; and Loayza Tamayo Case, supra note 52, para. 57.