13. The petitioners also alleged that the State failed to investigate the authorities responsible for the unwarranted delay in the proceedings for the review of the declaration of abandonment, as well as other authorities and individuals involved in the declaration of abandonment and adoption of the Ramírez boys. 14. In addition, the petitioners argued that the State violated the right to privacy and family life of the Ramírez brothers, their mother, and the father of one of them. They alleged that the State arbitrarily interfered in their nuclear family by removing the boys from their home in an irregular manner, as well as through the declaration of abandonment and subsequent adoption. The petitioners asserted that the State allowed the lawyers and notaries involved in both proceedings—which were plagued by a number of errors—to continue with the respective procedures to finalize the adoption, which did not comply with international standards on the matter. 15. In relation to the right to equal protection, the petitioners alleged that the Ramírez brothers and their parents were the victims of discrimination by the various government actors who took part in the proceedings for the declaration of abandonment. They claimed that the boys and their parents were treated differently based on social prejudices and the family’s financial status. They stated that, in their opinion, this was the basis for the declaration of abandonment of the Ramírez brothers. 16. The petitioners additionally asserted that, due to the irregular proceedings that resulted in the judicial declaration of abandonment and adoption, Osmín Ricardo and J.R.’ rights to a name and identity were violated. They argued that, in addition to having their names and their history’s data changed, they boys lost the opportunity to grow up with the identity of their family and their culture, which affected their personal, family, and social development. 17. The petitioners argued that the State violated the right to personal liberty of the Ramírez boys by sending them to live in a private institution for 17 months without having conducted the appropriate prior assessments of the suitability of the boys’ nuclear and extended family for purposes of their reintegration into their immediate family. They explained that this was because at that time there was a widespread practice of issuing evaluations directly recommending transfer to different State-sponsored adoption residences. 18. They alleged that the Ramírez brothers’ right to humane treatment was violated, especially in its mental aspect, given that they had been: (i) arbitrarily forced by the State to be removed from their biological mother and the biological father of Osmín Ricardo Tobar Ramírez; (ii) arbitrarily sent to live in a private institution for 17 months; and (iii) taken to live with families residing in the United States of America where the language and cultural values were different from those of their biological parents, and without contact between them. They stated that all of this caused the children to experience distress, pain, and suffering. 19. The petitioners added that this suffering has continued, given that the boys have not had contact with their biological parents. They argued that Mrs. Flor de María Ramírez Escobar and Mr. Gustavo Amílcar Tobar Fajardo’s right to humane treatment was also violated, as they were arbitrarily separated from their sons and unable to have contact with them. The petitioners stated that all of this, as well as the unsuccessful motions and appeals filed before the Guatemalan authorities, have caused them intense distress, pain, and suffering. B. Position of the State 20. The State argued that it bears no responsibility in this case. It alleged that the judicial declaration of abandonment and the subsequent adoption were properly conducted in accordance with domestic law. 21. It maintained that the authority that issued the declaration of abandonment considered different evidence in order to render its decision on the appropriateness of the protection measures on behalf of the Ramírez brothers. In addition, the court found that no family member was suitable to care for the boys, 3