of Justice.” It also argued that there is documentary evidence that “the right to physical integrity [of Mr. Quijano] was respected.” In the case of José Vicente Rubiano, the State asserted that his detention “took place under the provisions […] of Decree 1056 of 1984.” It indicated that “he was detained for his presumed participation in the illegal transportation of weapons and, subsequently, he was handed over to the competent authority,” so that the restriction of his liberty “was based on reasons and procedures established by domestic law” and “was the result of being found in flagrante delicto.” The State indicated that the presumed victim remained detained “in an establishment designed for this purpose (the Model Prison)” and “there is no evidence to consider that Mr. Rubiano’s right to physical integrity was violated by State agents while he was in their custody.” In this regard, it argued that “there is only one indication of [the supposed] abuse and this is his own statement, which contains obvious contradictions even though it relates to acts that he should remember distinctly owing to their severity.” B. Considerations of the Court 373. In this case there is no dispute as regards the detention of Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci, Eduardo Matson Ospino and Orlando Quijano on November 6, 1985, after they had survived the events of the taking and retaking of the Palace of Justice. Also, there is no dispute about the detention of José Vicente Rubiano Galvis in Zipaquirá on November 7, 1985, even though the parties disagree on the circumstances of his detention. Furthermore, the State has acknowledged the illegal and arbitrary nature of the detention of Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and Eduardo Matson Ospino, and also that State agents tortured them because they were suspected of collaborating with the M-19. However, the dispute remains as regards what happened to Orlando Quijano and José Vicente Rubiano Galvis. The State argued, above all, that there is no evidence of the treatment that these two victims allege they received during their respective detentions, and that these detentions were carried out under legal provisions in force at the time of the events. In order to examine the violations that have been alleged in relation to these victims, the Court will proceed to determine what happened to Orlando Quijano and to José Vicente Rubiano Galvis. Once it has established the facts relating to these two victims, it will analyze, insofar as pertinent, the alleged violation of the rights to personal liberty and to physical integrity of Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci, Eduardo Matson Ospino, Orlando Quijano and José Vicente Rubiano Galvis. 374. The Court reiterates its criteria for the assessment of evidence and the importance of circumstantial evidence in cases such as this one (supra paras. 81, 82, 230 and 231). To determine what happened to José Vicente Rubiano Galvis and Orlando Quijano, the Court will examine: (1) the practice of detention and torture at the time of the events; (2) the statements of Orlando Quijano and José Vicente Rubiano Galvis; (3) the considerations and findings of the domestic judicial authorities and the Truth Commission; (4) the warnings or threats so that they would not reveal what had happened, and (5) the psychological appraisals of the victims and the reports. B.1) Determination of what happened B.1.1) The practice of detention and torture at the time of the events 375. The Court notes that, according to the Third Criminal Court, at the time of the events there was a practice of taking individuals suspected of belonging to guerrilla groups to military facilities where they were frequently ill-treated. 565 Similarly, the 51st Criminal Court indicated that “it can be inferred with total certainty that, during the 1970s and 1980s, surveillance and retention without an order from the competent authority, unlawful 565 Cf. Judgment of the Third Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit of June 9, 2010 (evidence file, folios 23966 to 23974), and Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folios 38 and 39). 128