Guárico River, where they were questioned, beaten on different parts of the body, and threatened with death if they reported what had happened to them.92 In addition, a forensic examination of Rigoberto Barrios established the existence of bruising to his shoulder and left side, in addition to minor injuries (supra para. 73). 81. Additionally, on June 19, 2004, the minors Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño and Oscar José Barrios were again arrested and assaulted by police agents at the Barbacoas Police Station (supra para. 74). Oscar José Barrios stated that, during this detention, the police officers “threatened [him and Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño, and that one of them] told [him] that he had to kill [him], grabbed his unloaded weapon and placed it against [his] head.”93 The State has not presented any arguments or information about these events. 82. This Court has held that the mere threat of a conduct prohibited by the provisions of Article 5 of the American Convention, when this is sufficiently real and imminent, may in itself be in conflict with the right to personal integrity. In addition, creating a threatening situation or threatening to kill an individual may constitute, at the very least, inhuman treatment in some circumstances.94 In the instant case, when the above-mentioned incidents took place, two members of the Barrios family had already been deprived of life by police agents (supra paras. 62 and 63), so that the threats against the youth’s life with firearms, and the assault on them while they were deprived of liberty necessarily caused them to feel intense anguish and vulnerability, which constituted a violation of personal integrity. 83. Furthermore, the Court observes that, on June 19, 2004, the agents not only assaulted Jesús and Gustavo Ravelo and Luisa del Carmen Barrios, but they also threatened them with other acts of violence and one of them fired a shot near them (supra paras. 74). These attacks and threats represent conduct that violates the right to personal integrity and are prohibited by Article 5 of the Convention. Also, with regard to Elbira Barrios, Jesús Ravelo testified on two occasions, first that she had been “pushed” and, subsequently, that she had been “insulted” by the police officials.95 Despite this, Elbira Barrios herself stated that “they only hit Jesus and Gustavo Ravelo.”96 Consequently, the Court does not consider it proved that Elbira Barrios was physically or verbally assaulted by police officials on that occasion, but does have sufficient evidence to suppose that she felt afraid owing to the gunshot fired and other acts of violence that occurred while she was detained. From the information available, the Court concludes that the threat with a firearm and the assaults while they were detained, necessarily caused Jesús and Gustavo Ravelo, Luisa del Carmen and Elbira Barrios to feel anguish and vulnerability, which constitutes a violation of their right to personal integrity. 84. Based on the above, the Court considers that the said facts violated the right to personal integrity recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Gustavo Ravelo, Jesús Ravelo, Luisa del Carmen 92 Cf. Complaint filed by Rigoberto Barrios on March 11, 2004, supra note 77, folios 4801 and 4802, and Record of interview with Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño on March 11, 2004, supra note 77, folio 4804. 93 Cf. Record of interview with Oscar José Barrios on February 22, 2005, supra note 87, folio 3457. 94 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 43, para. 165, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 108. 95 Record of interview with Jesús Ravelo on February 24, 2005, supra note 79, folios 3452 and 3453, and Record of interview with Jesús Ravelo on August 10, 2004, supra note 86, folio 3470. 96 Record of interview with Elbira Barrios on February 22, 2005, supra note 80, folio 3444. 32