86. Therefore, the Court concludes that Mr. López Sosa’s detention within the framework of the police disciplinary proceedings did not meet the standards required under the Convention of (i) legality, (ii) the alleged victim’s right to be informed of the reasons for the detention and the charges brought against him, nor was it subject to (iii) due judicial control, so the State is responsible for violating Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(4) and 7(5) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. VI-2 RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS 159 A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 87. The Commission maintained that the alleged victim had been subjected to “various blows and mistreatment” by state agents, including repeated blows to the soles of his feet for several hours. The Commission argued that this mistreatment constituted a form of torture based on (i) the existence of a forensic report on the victim concluding that Mr. López suffered torture, as well as (ii) the testimonies of numerous people about alleged acts of torture to their detriment, or to the detriment of Mr. López. It added that the mistreatment suffered by Mr. López was aimed at “pressuring him to give a statement acknowledging that he involved people in [the] attempted coup d’état.” It further maintained that the State’s argument regarding the absence of a final domestic ruling corroborating the alleged facts should be rejected. 88. Therefore, the Commission argued that the State had violated the right to humane treatment established in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. It also maintained that the State had violated Articles 1 and 6 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 89. The representative “completely” agreed with the Commission’s assertions in its Merits Report and argued that, despite the fact that the State is the guarantor of all persons deprived of their liberty, its own agents had used physical coercion to “secure a confession in an improper manner and based on lies.” 90. The State maintained that it did not deem it pertinent to evaluate the alleged acts of torture and bodily injury. Since there was still no unappealable judgment corroborating the facts that were claimed to have occurred, to do so would be to prejudge the outcome of the oral public trial that would be held in Paraguay to determine the responsibility of the alleged perpetrators of the alleged acts of torture against Mr. López. It added that the Court should not rule on the existence or otherwise of the alleged acts of torture attributed to the accused in the criminal proceedings, because, if it did so, the ruling could be submitted to the ongoing criminal proceedings and might influence or bias the judges in making their decisions, thereby undermining the guarantee of the principle of presumption of innocence that should apply in all proceedings. 159 Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 27