be presumed that Benito Antonio Barrios felt anguish and feared for his life while he was in state custody and until his death. 67. Regarding the death of Narciso Barrios, the Court observes that the police officials involved in his death reported that it resulted from a confrontation, while three people testified before the Barbacoas Police Station that the victim was armed and that they “heard” shots being fired by Narciso Barrios. The Court observes that two of these deponents had been arrested by the police officials together with the youth Jorge Antonio Barrios moments before the death of Narciso Barrios, and made their statements before the Aragua state police, with no record of the presence of the Public Prosecution Service or a legal representative at the time. To the contrary, other witnesses, who testified before the Public Prosecution Service, stated that Narciso Barrios was unarmed when he was wounded. For its part, the Public Prosecution Service charged the three police officers with aggravated homicide and of accusing someone of being armed who did not carry a weapon, thus altering the scene of the crime (supra para. 63). In addition, the statements of the agents involved reveal that they fired at the victim at least 10 times (supra para. 63). However, even assuming that the victim was armed, a hypothesis rejected by the prosecution, the Court has no probative elements in this case, that would reveal a situation of imminent threat of death or injury justifying the use of force. Also, no evidence or arguments have been presented to the Court that the agents who took part in the events were complying with the requirement of “absolute necessity” in the use of force, or that they attempted another less lethal way of intervening. 68. Based on the above, the Court finds that the State violated Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Benito Antonio Barrios and Narciso Barrios. In addition, the attack on and illegal arrest of Benito Antonio Barrios constituted a violation of the right to personal integrity and personal liberty established, respectively, in Articles 5(1), 5(2), 7(1), and 7(2) of the American Convention, also in relation to Article 1(1) of that instrument, to his detriment. 2. Rights to personal integrity and personal liberty of Jesús Ravelo, Gustavo Ravelo, Luisa del Carmen Barrios, Elbira Barrios, Jorge Antonio Barrios, Rigoberto Barrios and Oscar José Barrios, and rights of the child of Jorge Antonio Barrios, Rigoberto Barrios and Oscar José Barrios i. Arguments of the parties 69. The Commission considered that the physical injuries inflicted on Jorge Antonio and Rigoberto Barrios on March 3, 2004, with no justification for the use of force, “constitute acts against their personal integrity and are, in themselves, evidence that their detention was arbitrary, because of both the methods utilized and the purpose pursued, all of which was in the context of police persecution of the family.” It stressed that the State had not provided information on the reasons for the detention or the treatment received by the victims. In addition, it argued that the purpose of the detention was to intimidate and threaten them, and to reduce their physical and psychological resistance, in relation to the complaint concerning the extrajudicial execution of Narciso Barrios filed two days earlier, which Jorge Antonio Barrios had witnessed. Lastly, it concluded that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to respect and guarantee the right to personal integrity and personal liberty and disregarded its obligation to provide special protection to children, violating the rights established in Articles 5(1), 5(2), 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5) and 19 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño and Rigoberto Barrios. 27