43 [a]ccording to the first of these regulatory provisions, no one shall be deprived of his physical liberty, except for reasons, cases or circumstances specifically established by law (material aspect), but, also, under strict conditions established beforehand by law (formal aspect). In the second provision, we have a condition according to which no one shall be subject to arrest or imprisonment for causes or methods that - although qualified as legal - may be considered incompatible with respect for the fundamental rights of the individual because they are, among 253 other matters, unreasonable, unforeseeable or out of proportion. 225. The Commission has also held that detention for improper purposes is in itself a form of punishment that constitutes an illegal penalty and violates the guarantee to a fair trial. As the InterAmerican Court has ruled, “the kidnapping of a person is an arbitrary deprivation of liberty, an infringement of a detainee’s right to be taken without delay before a judge and to invoke the appropriate 254 procedures to review the legality of the arrest, all in violation of Article 7 of the Convention” . It is precisely to protect the individual against such transgressions that the Convention establishes “positive obligations that impose specific or special requirements both on the agents of the State and on third 255 parties acting with their tolerance or consent”. 226. In the present case, the Commission has demonstrated that between December 11 and 13, 1981 an operation was carried out, primarily by the Atlacatl Battalion with the support of other military units, including the Salvadoran Air Force. During that operation successive massacres were committed in seven localities in the north of the Department of Morazán. The massacres began in the village of El Mozote, continued in the canton of La Joya and the villages of Ranchería, Los Toriles and Jocote Amarillo, culminating in the canton of Cerro Pando and the Cerro Ortiz cave. 227. Those massacres were committed with extreme cruelty, involving the use of firearms, beatings with sticks, the slitting of throats, and even fires set in places where there were still people alive, screaming in pain. In those deplorable events around 1,000 people died, including an alarming number of children. There is no possible indication that the deeds were committed in the context of a confrontation. On the contrary, the statements of the survivors concur with the findings of the forensic experts to the effect that there is no evidence to support the version of a confrontation, while the manner in which the exhumed remains were found is consistent with a mass and indiscriminate attack against the civilian population. 228. The stories of the survivors highlight the brutality with which the victims were treated before they were killed. Many of them were beaten and physically mistreated. By the nature of the events it is not possible to pinpoint the distinct acts of torture to which the victims were subjected. However, the statements indicate that many people were interrogated violently about their alleged links to the guerrillas, and the majority had to look on as their loved ones, neighbors and acquaintances were murdered, while awaiting their own fate. Several of the survivors said they heard victims crying out and begging not to be killed. These facts in themselves indicate that the persons skilled were the victims of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in the moments before their death. 229. The Commission also observes that the modus operandi pursued in the village of El Mozote consisted of the prior detention of groups of persons. The statements of the only survivor of the massacre, Rufina Amaya, indicate that the men and older boys were initially separated from the women and the younger children. As Mrs. Amaya witnessed, the men were detained for a time before they were killed, while the women were being held with their younger children in another place. Once the men and women had been massacred, the children remained in detention for a time until Army personnel killed them. In light of the circumstances surrounding the massacre at El Mozote, the Commission considers that all the persons killed in the place were unlawfully and arbitrarily detained before their death. 253 I-A Court. Hermanos Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers vs. Perú. Judgment of 8 July 2004. Series C No. 110, Para. 83; and Juan Humberto Sánchez vs. Honduras. Judgment of 7 June 2003. Series C No. 99, Para. 78. 254 I-A Court. Velásquez Rodríguez vs. Honduras. Judgment of 29 July 1988. Series C No. 4 Para. 155. 255 I-A Court. Juan Humberto Sánchez vs. Honduras. Judgment of 7 June 2003. Series C No. 99, para 81.