34 — the abductors had efficient means of mobilization and aggression: they arrived at the site in a pick-up truck, armed with firearms that they used to threaten the youths, and they left the site in the same vehicle, taking those abducted; — several witnesses, who made statements during the domestic judicial proceedings, provided the investigators with detailed physical descriptions of the abductors and identified them in personal and photographic identification procedures. The persons identified by the witnesses were members of the National Police Force. Several of those who made statements mentioned that those agents frequented the area of “Las Casetas”, and were friends of the administrator of a kiosk, who was known for her dislike of the “street children” in the sector. Some of these witnesses corroborated their declarations before this Court: and — one witness declared that the National Police Force agents who were identified as the perpetrators of the detention of the youths had taken part in a similar abduction of “street children” from the “Las Casetas” area a few days earlier, and that she was one of the victims (supra, para. 119). 129. The investigations of the National Police Force itself, conducted on the orders of the domestic judges, and presented during the respective judicial proceedings, arrived at the conclusion that the four youths had been apprehended by the two agents identified by the witnesses. The State has not challenged this conclusion and even confirmed it, because when referring to the issue in the answer to the application, it maintained that “the interaction of the various State bodies show[s] perfectly that the legal system carried out its functions, both through the principle of the presence of both parties to the action [and because the] investigation by the National Police Force [...] supported the accusation presented by the Office of the Attorney-General”. 130. The said conclusion is confirmed by abundant information on the environment, which is available in documents that are part of the probative material (supra, para. 59.c) and describe unlawful and violent actions against the “street children” by various types of State security agents. These actions include several that are very similar to those that constitute the facts of the instant case. 131. With regard to arrests the Court has said [Article 7] contains as specific guarantees, described in its subparagraphs 2 and 3, the prohibition of detention or unlawful or arbitrary arrest, respectively. According to the first of these regulatory provisions, no one shall be deprived of his physical liberty, except for the reasons, cases or circumstances specifically established by law (material aspect), but, also, under strict conditions established beforehand by law (formal aspect). In the second provision, we have a condition according to which no one shall be subject to arrest or imprisonment for causes or methods that – although qualified as legal – may be considered incompatible with respect for the fundamental rights of the individual because they are, among other matters, unreasonable, unforeseeable or out of proportion20. 20. Gangaram Panday case, supra note 13, para. 47.