psychological abuse” and were subjected “to intense interrogations” in the Casa del Florero, and then at the DIPEC and at the Charry Solano Intelligence Battalion. They were released “without ever having been informed of the reasons for their detention or allowed to communicate with a lawyer or their families, and they were not brought before any judicial authority.” The representatives indicated that Orlando Quijano was taken to the premises of the 13th Brigade, where “he was held in isolation in a dark room without food, and subjected to further interrogations,” and finally to the SIJIN, where he remained detained until November 8, without a court order, without being informed of the reasons for his detention, and without being brought immediately before a judge, while he was subjected to interrogations due to his presumed connections with the M-19. Regarding José Vicente Rubiano, they argued that he was arbitrarily detained on November 7, 1985, at a military checkpoint when he was on a bus where some weapons were found. The representatives affirmed that José Vicente was taken to the Usaquén military garrison, and then to the 13th Brigade, and to the Usaquén stables. During his detention, he was interrogated due to his presumed connection to the M-19; he was beaten and “they applied electric current to his testicles, while they asked him to declare himself guilty of transporting weapons and being a subversive.” The representatives indicated that, on the morning of November 8, he was transferred to the No. 13 Military Police Battalion and from there to the Model Prison where he remained for 22 days. According to the representatives, José Vicente was not advised of the charges against him, and he was not brought before the ordinary courts or allowed to communicate with his family. They underscored that, even though his detention was justified by a presumed violation of Decree 1056 of 1984, on November 23, 1985, he was exonerated of the charges. In this regard, the representatives argued that, “[in] all four cases, the victims were detained arbitrarily by members of the Colombian armed forces under the unfounded suspicion that they had collaborated in the taking of the Palace of Justice.” The representatives also argued that they all underwent treatment that constituted torture during their detention, and stressed that “they were interrogated numerous times, […] and the intention was to obtain a confession and information from the detainees.” Consequently, they asked the Court to declare that Colombia had violated Articles 5 and 7, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of the four presumed victims. 372. The State acknowledged that Yolanda Santodomingo and Eduardo Matson had been detained and subjected to torture after being evacuated from the Palace of Justice. However, it argued that “to date” there is no evidence to conclude, irrefutably, the existence of the violation of the rights to personal liberty and to physical integrity of Orlando Quijano and José Vicente Rubiano indicated by the Commission and the representatives. It asserted that it cannot be concluded that all those who alleged that they had suffered abuse during the events were, in fact, victims of this, and that the acts committed against Yolanda Santodomingo and Eduardo Matson were serious, but isolated. According to the State, “there are circumstances that justify the restriction of personal liberty even when there is no early intervention by the courts.” In this regard, it argued that the provisional detention of Orlando Quijano for identification purposes was authorized under the laws in force at the time. It explained that the facts of the case involved a serious disturbance of public order and security, so that the authorities had to use the powers available to them to verify the identity of the persons who were in and around the Palace, and to eliminate their participation in the perpetration of the events. It indicated that Mr. Quijano “only remained in the military facilities the time required to take his personal details (no more than about three hours) and afterwards he was taken to the police authorities to confirm his identity and whether he had a police record,” so that “the time he spent in administrative detention was reasonable,” “especially when considering the numerous measures that the authorities had to take at that time, responding to the magnitude of the events of the Palace of Justice.” The State also indicated that “Mr. Quijano and the others who were retained knew that they were under administrative detention in order to verify their identity and to eliminate their participation in the events of the Palace 127