236. Regarding the events of December 4, 2003, the date on which around 120 members of the Sarayaku People were attacked by members of the Canelos People in the presence of police agents, the Commission argued that the State had not provided adequate protection to the 20 members of the Sarayaku People who were attacked, because the contingent of police agents present was “in every sense insufficient” to prevent acts of violence, particularly given that the community of Canelos had announced days before that it would deny right of way to the Sarayaku. 237. Regarding these events, the representatives considered that the State was responsible for violating the right to physical integrity of the members of Sarayaku who were assaulted and attacked in the community of Canelos. They argued that the State knew about the indigenous protest, and the constant blockades that hindered the Sarayaku’s freedom of movement along the Bobonaza River and the attacks from neighboring communities, but, despite this, it dispatched a contingent of only 10 police agents. They affirmed that, after the attack had occurred, the State agents ordered the Sarayaku members to return to their community, which is a day by canoe from Canelos, despite their physical condition, without food or medical care, which proves that the State did not take the necessary measures to protect the personal integrity of the Sarayaku who were on their way to a peaceful march. In addition, the representatives indicated that the State had not investigated or punished the perpetrators of those attacks. Consequently, the representatives argued that the State had violated the right to integrity of the 120 members of the Sarayaku who were attacked in Canelos on December 4, 2003. 238. Regarding the events of December 4, 2003, the State rejected the arguments of the representatives and the Commission, considering that the criminal investigation system had been activated through various investigations to ascertain the facts and determine those responsible. It stressed that the investigations found that people who were injured did not suffer severe physical injuries, that they did not even need rest, that they received outpatient treatment and that some were only incapacitated for a few hours. The State also argued that the Governor of Pastaza had stated publicly that he had ordered the presence of the Armed Forces and the Police to protect people’s rights and to prevent possible inter-community clashes from taking place, and that the efforts of the security forces would have been based on the parameters of proportionality and respect for rights. The State also argued that the members of the Sarayaku were fully aware of the potential risks of their actions. 239. As to the events of January 25, 2003, the representatives alleged that Elvis Gualinga, Marcelo Gualinga, Reinaldo Gualinga and Fabian Grefa had been detained by Ecuadorian soldiers, without a court order and without having been found in flagrante delicto. The representatives argued that the men were never informed about the reasons for their arrest or the charges against them and, therefore, the arrest violated Article 7 of the Convention. The representatives also argued that, while they were detained, they were subjected to inhuman treatment by CGC employees. Based on this, the representatives argued that the treatment to which they were subjected by the soldiers and the subsequent tolerance of the alleged ill-treatment inflicted on them by CGC personnel, constituted forms of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment that can be attributed to the State, in violation of Articles 5 of the Convention and 6 of the ICPPT. 240. As to the events of January 25, 2003, although the Commission referred to these, it indicated that it did not have sufficient evidence to rule on what had occurred. In addition, the Commission made no particular reference to the alleged violations of Article 7 of the American Convention and Article 6 of the ICPPT. 304 Article 7 of the American Convention establishes: “1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. 2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty, except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto. 3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. 4. Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him. 5. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to a trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial […].” 68