statements made before the Public Prosecutor’s Office were invalid, having resulted from cruel treatment, torture or solitary confinement, Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel confessed, before a competent court on May 7, 1999, to several of the crimes for which they were convicted; therefore, their confessions would be valid, 269 and iii) based on the foregoing, probative value was given to the statements made on that day. 270 However, the Court considers that when making a comparison between the crimes admitted by Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel in three statements, and the final judgment in which they were convicted, it may be concluded that they were sentenced for the same crimes they confessed to in the statement of May 7, 1999. Indeed, Mr. Montiel Flores was convicted of possession of firearm, while Mr. Cabrera was convicted of possession of a rifle and magazine. 173. In order to analyze the relationship between the three statements, the Court notes that the European Court on Human Rights, in the case of Harutyunyan v. Armenia, indicated that if there is reasonable evidence that a person has been tortured or subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment, the fact that this person ratifies his confession before a different authority other than the one responsible for the first confession, should not automatically lead to the conclusion that such confession is valid. This is so because a subsequent confession may be the consequence of the mistreatment suffered by the person and, more specifically, because of the fear that remains after this type of experience. 271 174. The Court shares the aforementioned view and reiterates that the situations of defenselessness and vulnerability felt by an individual when detained and subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in order to wear down that individual’s psychological resistance and force him to incriminate himself, 272 can produce feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and overwhelming an individual and possibly breaking his physical and moral resistance. 175. In this regard, the Court has already confirmed that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel were subjected to cruel and inhuman treatments during the days they were detained in Pizotla, without being promptly brought before a competent judicial authority (supra para. 134). From the foregoing, it is possible to conclude that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel were subjected to cruel treatment in order to break coercion nor violence.” Cf. Judgment issued on August 28, 2000 by the Fifth District Court, supra note 75, page 11197 and 11213. 269 The Second Collegiate Tribunal pointed out that “contrary to what the appellants allege, the appealed judgment was not only based on confessions they made in the record of the case, but the Tribunal admitted that these confessions into the other evidentiary items of the proceeding.” It added that “[e]ven assuming that their initial statements were not rendered freely and spontaneously, their ratification before the court remedied any possible procedural irregularities previously committed by the defendants; for this reason, the confessions in question have legal value and, therefore, the appealed judgment that takes them into account, with the rest of the evidence on record, does not violate the guarantees.” Cf. Judgment of August 14, 2002 issued by the Second Collegiate Tribunal, supra note 84, pages 3139 and 3202. 270 The Second Collegiate Tribunal considered that “it should be noted that the judgment being appealed was not solely based on the confession made by the defendants [before] the prosecutor's office of the common and federal jurisdiction, respectively, or before the court that initially heard the case against them; nor did the evidence furnished in the original case prove that, prior to the confession, they had been in solitary confinement; and there is even less evidence that their respective statements were obtained through threats or any form of coercion” Cf. Judgment of August 14, 2002 issued by the Second Collegiate Tribunal, supra note 84, pages 3137 to 3138. 271 Cf. ECHR, Case of Harutyunyan v. Armenia, supra nota 261, para. 65. 272 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C N° 69, para. 104; Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. supra note 218, para. 93, and Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 146. 68