104. In its arguments regarding the alleged violation of the right to defense, the State maintained that the victims were informed of the reasons for their arrest and of the charges brought against them. 105. This Court has established that, in light of Article 7(4) of the American Convention, information about the “motives and reasons” for arrest shall be provided “once it occurs,” as a mechanism for preventing unlawful or arbitrary detentions from the very moment that a person is deprived of his liberty and, in turn, ensures the individual’s right to defense. 139 This Court has also pointed out that the agent who carries out the arrest must inform the person in simple language, free of technical terms, about the essential legal reasons and facts on which the arrest is based. Article 7(4) of the Convention is not satisfied by the mere mention of the legal grounds. 140 106. In this regard, the Court notes that Article 7(4) of the Convention refers to two aspects: i) the information, whether in oral or written form, at the time of the arrest and ii) the notification, which must be served in writing, of the charges. There is no record in the case file that the victims were informed of the reasons for their arrest at the time of their detention; therefore, the State violated Article 7(4) of the American Convention to the detriment of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. VIII RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT [PERSONAL INTEGRITY] IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT RIGHTS AND THE OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH TORTURE 107. In relation to Article 5 of the American Convention, 141 the Commission considered in its application that “the evidence concerning the […] the acts of torture against the victims is inconclusive,” although it also indicated that it “neither asserts nor […] denies the existence of torture.” However, it stated that “there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to allow the Commission to […] infer that the victims were subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.” In its final arguments, the Commission pointed out that “based on the evidentiary elements furnished in the proceeding before the Court, [it] is possible to determine more precisely the actions against the personal integrity” of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. 108. The representatives asserted that torture was committed because a number of actions were systematically perpetrated over several days for the purpose of making the victims accept the charges brought against them and sign self-incriminating confessions, which caused them grave suffering. They added that “the domestic authorities dismissed the allegations of torture” based on medical 139 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, supra note 119, para. 82; Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti, supra note 49, para. 107; Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, supra note 99, para. 147. 140 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador, supra note 99, para. 71; Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti, supra note 49, para. 107; and Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, supra note 99, para. 147. 141 Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment [Personal Integrity]) of the Convention provides that: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. […] 39