40 one that was visible in the photographs, although “a little our of focus”, he stated that he could not affirm that it had been mutilated at all. With regard to two bodies, the expert witness stressed that “there [were] wounds here that were not [found] in the autopsy and […that they were] clearly in the photo[graphs]”. Moreover, he stated that there were no signs that the youths had tried to defend themselves. 161. A witness who declared in the domestic proceedings, and whose records form part of the probative material in the instant case, referred to facts that, taken in conjunction with the statements of the witnesses and elements from other related documents, allow us to infer the existence of a general pattern of violence against the “street children”. This witness described an abduction prior to the one that is the subject of this case, of which she was a victim together with two of the youths whose bodies were found in the San Nicolás Woods, Juárez Cifuentes and Caal Sandoval. In her declaration, she related that they were taken to a cemetery and she provided information on the painful mistreatment to which they were submitted (supra, para. 59.a). 162. It should be remembered that the youths were retained clandestinely by their captors for between 10 and 21 hours. This lapse of time occurred between two extremely violent circumstances: forced seizure and death due to the impacts of a firearm while defenseless, which the Court has already declared proved (supra, para. 82). It is reasonable to conclude that the treatment they received during those hours was extremely aggressive, even if there was no other evidence in this regard. 163. While they were retained, the four youths were isolated from the external world and certainly aware that their lives were in danger. It is reasonable to infer that, merely owing to this circumstance, they experienced extreme psychological and moral suffering during those hours. 164. In this respect, it is relevant to recall that the Court has previously stated that the mere fact of being placed in the trunk of a car constitutes an infringement of Article 5 of the Convention relating to humane treatment, inasmuch as, even if no other physical or ill treatment occurred, that action alone must clearly be considered to contravene the respect due to the inherent dignity of the human person24. And that in the events under which the deprivation of liberty is lawful [o]ne of the reasons that incommunicado detention is considered to be an exceptional instrument is the grave effects it has on the detained person. Indeed, isolation from the outside world produces moral and psychological suffering in any person, places him in a particularly vulnerable position, and increases the risk of aggression and arbitrary acts in prisons25. 165. Similarly, the European Court has stated that the mere threat of a behavior that is prohibited by the provision of the European Convention (Article 3), which corresponds to Article 5 of the American Convention, when it is sufficiently real and imminent, may in itself be in conflict with the respective norm. In other words: 24. Castillo Páez case, supra note 15, para. 66. 25. Suárez Rosero case. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No 35, para. 90.