116 By six votes to one, that: 5. The State is responsible for the non-compliance with the obligation contained in Article 1(1) of the Convention to ensure the right to freely seek, receive and impart information and the right to humane treatment, enshrined in Articles 13(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Alfredo José Peña Isaya, Aloys Emmanuel Marín Díaz, Ana Karina Villalba, Ángel Mauricio Millán España, Aymara Anahí Lorenzo Ferrigni, Beatriz Alicia Adrián García, Carla María Angola Rodríguez, Carlos Arroyo, Carlos Quintero, Ramón Darío Pacheco Villegas, Edgar Hernández, Efraín Antonio Henríquez Contreras, Felipe Antonio Lugo Durán, Gabriela Margarita Perozo Cabrices, Janeth del Rosario Carrasquilla Villasmil, Jhonny Donato Ficarella Martín, John Power, Jorge Manuel Paz Paz, José Vicente Antonetti Moreno, Joshua Oscar Torres Ramos, Martha Isabel Herminia Palma Troconis, Mayela León Rodríguez, Miguel Ángel Calzadilla, Oscar José Núñez Fuentes, Richard Alexis López Valle, and Yesenia Thais Balza Bolívar, under the terms and for the reasons mentioned in paragraphs 114 to 362 of this Judgment. Moreover, the State is responsable for the non-compliance with the obligation contained in Article 1(1) of the Convention to ensure the right to freely seek, receive and impart information enshrined in Article 13(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Ademar David Dona López, Carlos José Tovar Pallen, Félix José Padilla Geromes, Jesús Rivero Bertorelli, José Gregorio Umbría Marín, Wilmer Jesús Escalona Arnal and Zullivan René Peña Hernández, under the terms and for the reasons mentioned in paragraphs 114 to 362 of this Judgment. 6. It has not been established that the State violated the right to equal protection, enshrined in Article 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights, under the terms and for the reasons mentioned in paragraphs 375 to 381 of this Judgment. 7. It has not been established that the State violated the right to property, enshrined in Article 21 of the American Convention on Human Rights, under the terms and for the reasons mentioned in paragraphs 399 to 403 of this Judgment. 8. It has not been established that the State violated the right to seek, receive and impart information, enshrined in Article 13(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights, under the terms and for the reasons mentioned in paragraphs 366 to 469 of this Judgment. 9. The Court did not analyze the facts of the instant case under Articles 1, 2 and 7(b) of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Woman ("Convention of Belem do Pará") based on the reasons established in paragraphs 388 to 396 of this Judgment. Regarding the declarative paragraphs, Judge ad hoc Pasceri Scaramuzza dissenting. And Orders: By six votes to one, that: 10. This Judgment is in itself a form of redress. 11. The State must, effectively and within a reasonable term, conduct the investigations and necessary criminal proceedings, still in process at the domestic level and all future investigations or proceedings in order to determine the corresponding responsibilities for the facts of the case at hand and apply the appropriate legal provisions, according to paragraphs 414 of this Judgment.