41 simple and effective remedy against said act. It has been proven that the agents of the State, when they detained Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri, did not intend to bring them before a judge, but rather executed them extra-legally in less than an hour from the time they were detained. The Court has also deemed proven that the police agents involved in these facts presented Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri as “terrorists” and alleged that their death had taken place during an armed confrontation, an attitude that exacerbated the arbitrariness of the detention. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds that the State violated the provisions set forth in Article 7(5) and 7(6) of the American Convention. 100. In view of all the above, the Court finds that the State violated Article 7 of the American Convention, in combination with Article 1(1) of that same Convention, to the detriment of Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri. X RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT ARTICLE 5 in combination with Article 1(1) Articles 1, 6 and 9 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture Pleadings of the Commission 101. The Commission argued that the State violated Article 5 of the American Convention in combination with Article 1(1) of said treaty, in addition to Articles 1,6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, to the detriment of Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri and Rafael Samuel Gómez Paquiyauri, because: a) having been put into the trunk of a vehicle by police agents is, in itself, a violation of Article 5 of the American Convention against the alleged victims; b) given the existence of a State practice of extra-legal executions, and “as stated by the expert witness [Inge Genefke] at the […public] hearing,” it is reasonable to assume that the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers were aware of the danger they were in during their detention, for which reason “they must have felt fear and extreme terror when they were locked into the trunk of a police patrol with an unknown destination.” Furthermore, “it is reasonable to infer that one of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers was murdered before the other and that the second one to be murdered must have suffered, even if for fractions of a second, seeing how they shot his brother and, in turn, feeling imminently that he himself would immediately be murdered;” c) the facts of the instant case constitute torture, as defined in Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture; although said Article leaves certain room for interpretation to define whether a specific fact constitutes torture, “in the case of children the standard taken into account to define the degree of suffering must be higher,” bearing in mind factors such as age, sex, and “the effect of the tension and the fear felt,” health and degree of maturity; and d) in the proceeding before the Inter-American Commission, the petitioners argued that before killing the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers, “the policemen tortured them, beating them with the buts of their machine guns;”