29 determine whether there were excessive delays.148 After July 8, 2004, appeals filed by the convicted were acted upon and there is no information on excessive delays imputable to the State up to September 23, 2005, when the sentences were made final. 97. Therefore, the Court does not find an infringement of a reasonable time in the proceedings. B.7. Conclusion 98. In view of the above considerations, the Court holds that the State is responsible for violating Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of the next of kin of the deceased persons, the injured persons and their next of kin. The name of those persons may be found in Annex B(1) of this judgment. 99. The Court will now examine the remaining alleged violations. VII.2 RIGHTS TO LIFE,149 TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY150 AND OF THE CHILD,151 READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT THE RIGHTS WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 100. The Commission concluded that the use of force by the military was contrary to the principles of legitimate ends, necessity and proportionality. Therefore, it considered that the deaths of eight persons,152 which occurred at the Xamán finca were arbitrary deprivations of the right to life and the injuries to 26 persons,153 were impairments to their right to personal integrity. It stated that three persons who were wounded and later died had both rights infringed.154 It also determined that the deaths of the two boys and a girl155 implied a violation of the right to life in relation to the rights of the child since the State failed to comply with its specific obligation to protect children against actions of the public security forces. The Commission, thus, alleged that Guatemala infringed, to the detriment of the persons directly affected by the use of force by military personnel, depending on each case, Articles 4(1) and/or 5(1) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, as well as Article 4(1), read in conjunction with Articles 19 and 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the deceased children. 101. The Commission also concluded that the behavior of the troops at the Community on the day of the incident was related to the context of the internal armed conflict, which At this step it is not relevant to examine the four elements to assess the reasonability of that period (supra footnote 147). 149 Article 4 of the Convention reads: “Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be respected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 150 Article 5(1) of the Convention states: “Every person has the right to have his physical, mental and moral integrity respected.” 151 Article 19 of the Convention reads: “Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society and the state.” 152 Cf. Annex B(2) of this judgment. The names found therein coincide with those to which the Commission referred. 153 Cf. Annex B(3) of this judgment. The first 26 names found therein coincide with those to which the Commission referred. 154 1.-Santiago Maquín Quip; 2.-Gerardo Maldonado Sales and 3.-Rosendo Morales Ortiz 155 1.-Carlos Fernando Chop Chic; 2.-Santiago Coc, and 3.-Maurilia Coc Max. 148