14 36. Article 54 of the Rules of Procedure establishes that: [T]HE COURT, MAY NOTWITHSTANDING THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONDITIONS INDICATED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, AND BEARING IN MIND ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDE TO CONTINUE THE CONSIDERATION OF A CASE. 37. The Inter-American Court acknowledges that the agreement signed by the State, the Commission and the representatives of the next of kin of the victim (hereinafter “the next of kin of the victim”) is a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings and to effectiveness of the principles that inspire the American Convention on Human Rights. The Court highlights the goodwill shown by the State of Argentina before this Court, as it did previously in another case,2 which demonstrates the commitment of the State to respect for and effective exercise of human rights. 38. This Court deems that there is a basic consensus among the parties, which has led them to sign a friendly settlement agreement as well as an explanatory document regarding that agreement, so that there is no doubt regarding its scope. In light of said documents, the Court corroborates the willingness of the parties to end the controversy with respect to the merits of the matter. In view of the above, and as the Court had set forth in its March 6, 2003 Order, the controversy between the State and the Commission has ceased regarding the facts that gave rise to the instant case.3 In light of the friendly settlement agreement signed by the parties and its explanatory document, and of the evidence supplied by them, the Court finds that the State violated, as it has acknowledged: a. The right to personal liberty, enshrined in Article 7 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Walter David Bulacio, who was illegally and arbitrarily detained by the police during a razzia operation without a court order, and by not having informed him of his rights as a detainee, nor having promptly notified his parents and the Juvenile Judge regarding his detention. b. The right to humane treatment, protected by Article 5 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Walter David Bulacio, who was beaten by police agents and subjected to mistreatment, as stated in the application (supra 3). c. The right to life, enshrined in Article 4 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Walter David Bulacio, as the State, which was in the position of guarantor, did not “appropriately exercise the duty of custody.” d. The right to judicial protection and to fair trial, set forth in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Walter David Bulacio, for not having notified the Juvenile Judge immediately after his detention. It also denied those same rights to the next of kin of Walter David Bulacio by not providing them with effective judicial remedy to clarify the causes of the 2 Cf., Garrido and Baigorria Case. February 2, 1996 Judgment. Series C No. 26. Cf., Barrios Altos Case. March 14, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 75, para. 38; Trujillo Oroza Case. January 26, 2000 Judgment. Series C No. 64, para. 40; El Caracazo Case. November 11, 1999 Judgment. Series C No. 58, para. 41; Benavides Cevallos Case. June 19, 1998 Judgment. Series C No. 38, para. 42; Garrido and Baigorria Case, supra note 2, para. 27; El Amparo Case. January 18, 1995 Judgment. Series C No. 19, para. 20; and Aloeboetoe et al. Case. December 4, 1991 Judgment. Series C No. 11, para. 23. 3