102 The Court’s findings 252. Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention establish: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated regarding for the inherent dignity of the human person. 253. In this section, the Court will refer successively to the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention in relation to the victims who were executed in the massacres of La Granja and El Aro; their next of kin; the persons detained and obliged to herd livestock; the persons who lost their possessions; the persons displaced, and the inhabitants of La Granja and El Aro who do not fall into the previous categories. a) Concerning the alleged violation of the right to humane treatment of the victims executed in the massacres of La Granja and El Aro 254. The Court notes that, according to the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, the massacres in La Granja and El Aro were perpetrated by a large number of heavily-armed individuals, using extreme violence on the population, intimidating the inhabitants by death threats, and executing people publicly and arbitrarily. The persons executed in La Granja and El Aro witnessed these threatening acts before their death, together with the violent death and torture of their companions. This context of violence and threats caused the victims who were subsequently executed, intense fear of suffering the same consequences (supra paras. 125(33) to 125(40) and 125(57) to 125(79)). 255. The Court has maintained that, when it is sufficiently real and imminent, the mere threat of a conduct prohibited by Article 5 of the American Convention may, in itself, violate this article. In other words, creating a threatening situation or threatening an individual with torture may, in some circumstances, constitute inhumane treatment.222 256. In this case, it has been proved that the personal integrity of the 19 persons who lost their life in the Ituango Massacres was violated and that the treatment they received during the hours before their death was extremely violent, particularly when it is considered that the “paramilitary group” believed that these people collaborated with the guerrilla groups – in the context of the conflict in the zone, this could be interpreted as a serious threat to life. Also, we can infer that the way in which the massacres were perpetrated caused the alleged victims to fear and anticipate that they would be deprived of their life violently and arbitrarily, which constituted cruel and inhuman treatment. 257. Based on the above, the Court considers that, in this case, there are sufficient elements of proof to conclude that Colombia is responsible for the violation of the 222 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 5, para. 119; Case of Tibi, supra note 176, para. 147; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 149. Likewise, cf. Eur.C.H.R., Campbell and Cosans, Judgment of 25 February 1982, Series A, No. 48, p. 12, § 26.