16 District, in the case against the police officers for abuse of authority against Mr. CastilloPáez, in the habeas corpus proceeding filed on the victim's behalf in two courts (supra, para. 43.g. and h.). That court, which acquitted the accused for lack of evidence, maintained, however, that: it had been duly and adequately proven that during the morning of October twenty-first of the year nineteen hundred and ninety the victim Ernest Rafael Castillo-Páez was stopped and arrested by the occupants of a Peruvian National Police vehicle as he was walking near the Central Park of Group Seventeen, Second Sector, Second Zone, of the Villa El Salvador District, since when his whereabouts have been unknown, and for which reason during the jurisdictional investigation it [has been found] that the crime of abuse of authority had been committed in that investigation. All of which coincides with the statements of the aforementioned eye-witnesses (supra, para. 30). X 62. The Court analyzes the complaint on the violation of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) on the part of the State. That article establishes that: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 63. In its application, the Commission considered that from the witnesses' account of the abduction, "it transpires that Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez was the victim of physical and psychological maltreatment when he was arbitrarily detained and taken away by police officers ... and placed in the trunk of the police car," and that those acts constitute per se a violation of physical integrity as established in the Convention. 64. The Commission further stated that the very fact of the abduction, "the result of an unlawful and arbitrary arrest- and the circumstances surrounding it" and the "coercive isolation to which the victim of the crime of forced disappearance was subjected represent" in themselves forms of cruel and inhuman treatment. 65. In its answer to the petition, the State declared that the statements of the witnesses produced by the Commission, to the effect that Mr. Castillo-Páez was unlawfully detained by police agents and subjected by them to "abusive" treatment was in no way corroborated and that there was no "valid evidence to substantiate the Peruvian State's violation of Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez' right to humane treatment." The State claimed that the witnesses did not know Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez and that their statements were improperly taken by the Magistrate of the Twenty-Fourth Criminal Court of Lima, Dr. Elba Minaya-Calle. 66. The Court deems to have been proven by the eye-witnesses' accounts that Mr. Castillo-Páez, after being detained by the police, was placed in the trunk of the official vehicle (supra, para. 43.d.). The foregoing constitutes an infringement of Article 5 of the Convention relating to humane treatment, inasmuch as, even if no other physical or other maltreatment occurred, that action alone must be clearly considered to contravene the respect due to the inherent dignity of the human person.