65 b) the interrogations of Bámaca Velásquez by agents of the armed forces, during which his feet and hands were bound and he was tied to a bed, while he received death threats, constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, contrary to Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention; c) the acts of violence and physical abuse against the person of Bámaca Velásquez in San Marcos, presumably to punish him for his activity as a guerrilla and to obtain information on the guerrilla strategy, correspond to the figure of torture established in Article 5(2) of the American Convention; d) the fact that the State agents tried to conceal his corpse was designed “to eliminate any evidence of torture. Consequently, the fact that the body was concealed, leads to the presumption of torture”. Moreover, the Army had the practice of torturing the guerrillas they captured, which was proved very exactly in the testimonies of Cabrera López, Urízar García and de la Roca, and also in the reports prepared by both the Commission for Historical Clarification and the REMHI; e) in the same way that the Court has established the inversion of the burden of proof with regard to the right to life in cases of the forced disappearance of persons, the same reasoning must be applied to the violation of the right to humane treatment “and, in particular, [to] the torture of the victim, particularly in view of the characteristics of forced disappearance”; f) the State violated the right to humane treatment of the next of kin of Bámaca Velásquez as a result of “the anxiety and suffering that [they underwent as] a consequence of the forced disappearance of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez”. The uncertainty caused by the lack of effectiveness of the remedies under domestic jurisdiction constituted cruel treatment. Furthermore, the fact that the remains of Bámaca Velásquez were not given proper burial has profound repercussions in the Mayan culture to which he belonged, “due to the fundamental importance of its culture and the active relationship that unites the living and the dead, [thus t]he lack of a sacred place where this relationship could be nurtured constitutes a profound concern that emerges from the testimonies of many Mayan communities”; and g) the “Guatemalan public authorities not only obstructed the investigation into the fate of Mr. Bámaca [Velásquez] with a blanket of silence, [but] they also began a campaign of harassing Mrs. Harbury”; for example, through press campaigns, the legal action for jactitation, and her exclusion from the criminal proceedings. In view of the foregoing, the Commission requested the Court to declare that this article had been violated with regard to the next of kin of Bámaca Velásquez, who are: Jennifer Harbury, José de León Bámaca Hernández, the victim's father, and Egidia Gebia Bámaca Velásquez and Josefina Bámaca Velásquez, the victim's sisters. 146. As mentioned above (supra 137), the State did not put forward any defense in relation to the violation of the right to personal liberty embodied in the American Convention, either at the procedural opportunity of replying to the application or in its final arguments. However, the State said that Bámaca Velásquez “did not have a close relationship with his family because he was dedicated to guerrilla activities in a