112 Convention on the Rights of the Child, which provides that States parties shall ensure that: No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time […]. 232. From the body of evidence in the present case, it is impossible to discern the manner in which Article 7 of the Convention may have been violated in the case of each individual alleged victim. In order to make a determination as to whether that article was violated, the Court must know the particulars of how preventive detention was used in the case of each individual inmate, in order to then be able to analyze whether each and every Article 7 requirement has been satisfied. As for the Center’s inmate population as a whole, whose rights under Article 7 of the Convention both the Commission and the representatives asked the Court to declare violated on the grounds that preventive detention had been applied disproportionately, the Court notes that in the case of some inmates, their conviction was final; others were in preventive detention for crimes like murder and rape. When it examined Article 7 in its Article 50 report, the Commission itself wrote that of the total inmate population at the Center, 93.2% may have had their right to personal liberty violated, but not all the inmates. This Court observes that neither the representatives nor the State provided the information needed to be able to make this determination. The Court is, however, deeply troubled by the State’s lack of vigilance or care with regard to children in preventive detention that the facts in this case have shown. 233. Although the Court has frequently used patterns of conduct or practices as a means of evidence to determine that human rights were violated, it has always done so when the finding is supported by other specific pieces of evidence (supra para. 217). In the case of Article 7 of the American Convention, the Court needs information on each of the alleged victims, which it does not have in the present case because the parties failed to provide it. 234. This Court therefore finds that it does not have the information it needs to be able to determine whether Article 7 (8.2) of the Convention was violated in the case of the alleged individual victims. XI VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 25 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION) Pleadings of the Commission 235. In the case of the violation of Article 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, the Commission argued as follows: a) this article was violated to the detriment of the juveniles interned in the Center in the period between August 14, 1996 and July 25, 2001;