A.2. The rights to personal integrity and personal liberty of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto (Article 7(2) of the Convention) 56. The Commission indicated that, in the case of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, the police officers did not have a court order and no situation of in flagrancia existed that would have justified an arrest; thus, according to the Convention, the arrest was unlawful. It added that the State had made a very sui generis reading of the meaning of flagrancia, according to which, under its domestic law, it would be possible that the officer would be empowered to make an arrest without a court order, even in situations in which he had not witnessed the perpetration of the offense. The Commission considered that this rule should be analyzed in light of the Convention because that type of in flagrancia could give rise to arbitrary arrests and other potential human rights violations. It also argued that it was reasonable to presume that, in the moments before the deprivation of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto’s life, he suffered profound fear owing to the real and imminent danger that the incident would end with his death, as effectively occurred. It also recalled that, when wounded, he was put in a patrol car and not taken immediately to a health center. Moreover, it argued that the State had not provided any kind of explanation of why the autopsy of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto’s corpse concluded that he was covered with sewage, including in his eyes, respiratory tract and even his digestive system. Based on the foregoing, it concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of the rights to personal integrity contained in Article 5(1) of the Convention to the detriment of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto. 57. The representatives agreed with the Commission and added that, after being shot and arrested, Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto was taken to a canal where a leather tannery discharged its wastewater, and submerged until his lungs were full of contaminated water. 66 They indicated that he was in the custody of the police at the time of his death, so that the State, in its capacity as guarantor of the right to personal integrity, was presumed to be responsible. They also recalled that even though Robert’s lifeless body showed signs of violence that could not be attributed to the use of force described, the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into the facts.67 Consequently, they concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of Article 5(2) of the American Convention and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture to the detriment of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto. 58. The State argued that the Commission had not weighed the facts to determine whether there had been a situation of in flagrancia, and that a statement of reasons for its conclusions was totally and absolutely absent. It indicated that, according to article 248 of the Organic Criminal Procedural Code in force at the time, the police officers acted in response to an offense that was being committed.68 It added that the Commission had failed to mention The representatives indicated that it is presumed that Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto was tortured and submerged in a place where there was wastewater because the evidence provided by the forensic physician indicated the presence of foreign matter in his respiratory tract and lungs. They indicated that the only way that this inorganic matter would reach those places in the body was through aspiration, and the person would have to have been alive at the time; this is why they considered that the victim, Robert Ignacio, had been tortured. In addition, when the corpse was examined “a large cerebral edema with compression grooves [was found], because the brain was extremely bruised and the lobes were affected.” They noted that, apparently, the presumed victim had not suffered any shot to the head so that these were signs of extreme violence and torture suffered by the victim while in the custody of the police officers who were acting under their authority as guarantors of his life. 66 The representatives indicated that the police authorities concealed the whereabouts of Robert for two hours, when the hospital nearest to where the facts occurred was only 15 minutes away. Robert was dead when he was admitted to the medical center as indicated by the autopsy and the testimony of the doctors who worked in the hospital. 67 The State recalled that the said article establishes that: “[…] an offense that is being committed or that has just been committed shall be considered flagrante delicto. In addition, the offense based on which the suspect is pursued by the police authority, by the victim or by the public, or in which he is surprised shortly after having committed the offense, in the place or near the place where it was committed, with weapons, instruments or other 68 -19-