41 creating a threatening situation or threatening an individual with torture may, at least in some circumstances, constitute inhuman treatment26. 166. Furthermore, it is worth recalling, as this Court has already stated, that a persons who is unlawfully detained (supra, para. 134) is in an exacerbated situation of vulnerability creating a real risk that his other rights, such as the right to humane treatment and to be treated with dignity, will be violated27. 167. Lastly, from the documents and testimonies that are included in the probative material, it is clear, as we have already stated, that the facts in this case occurred in a context of great violence against children and youths who lived on the streets (supra, para. 79), violence that very often included different types of torture and illtreatment28. 168. Having proved the fact that the physical and mental integrity of the youths, Contreras, Figueroa Túnchez, Caal Sandoval and Juárez Cifuentes was violated and that they were victims of ill-treatment and torture, the Court proceeds to determine the facts relating to the attribution of responsibility. 169. The Court believes that the ill treatment and torture was practiced by the same persons that abducted and killed the youths. Since the Court has established that those responsible for these acts were member of the National Police Force (supra, paras. 128 and 142), it is pertinent to conclude that the perpetrators of the ill-treatment and torture carried out in the time between the seizure and the murders, were State agents, whether they were those investigated and charged in the domestic proceedings or others. 170. In this respect, we should recall the presumption established by the European Court when considering that the State is responsible for ill-treatment exhibited by a person who has been in the custody of State agents, if the authorities are incapable of demonstrating that those agents did not incur in such behavior29. 171. In its final written arguments, the Commission indicated that the circumstances of the death of the victims together with the lack of action by the State had caused the victims’ next of kin “anxiety and also considerable fear”. The Court considers that the fact that this point has only been raised during the final arguments, does not, per se, prevent examining it and deciding on it. 172. From the records of the proceedings and, in particular, from the statements of witnesses who intervened in the domestic proceedings and before this Court, it may be deduced that 26. Cf. Eur. Court. H. R, Campbell and Cosans judgment of 25 February 1982, Series A, no. 48, p. 12, § 26. 27. Cf. Loayza Tamayo case, supra note 15, para. 57. 28. Reports by Casa Alianza and Amnesty International, annexed to the probative material in this case, supra note 11, mention shot wounds, cigarette burns, kicks and other hard blows, glue spilled on the head, bites from trained dogs, and various forms of humiliation by word and deed, as forms of torture and ill-treatment against Guatemalan “street children”. 29. Cfr. Eur. Court H. R., Aksoy v. Turkey, supra note 21, p. 2278, § 61;. Eur. Court HR, Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A, no. 336, p. 26 et seq., § 34 and Eur. Court H. R. case of Tomasi v. France of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-111.