Guatemala.”215 In this regard, the Court observes that expert witness Rosalina Tuyuc indicated during the public hearing that, for a Mayan woman “rape means dishonor, stigmatization, blame, and the disgrace it somehow causes within the family, [and …] the neighborhood.” 135. Based on the above, and on the acknowledgment of responsibility made by Guatemala for the consequences of the rape suffered by María Eustaquia Uscap Ivoy, the Court finds that the State violated the rights recognized in Articles 5(1), 11(1) and 11(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to her detriment. B. Violation of the right to personal integrity, in relation to the prohibition of slavery and servitude, and the obligations to respect and guarantee the rights of the child and the rights of the family, to the detriment of 17 children taken from the Río Negro Community B.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Inter-American Commission 136. The Commission indicated that 17 children belonging to the community of Río Negro who survived the massacres were taken away and forced, under threat,216 to live with their aggressors for several years in order to perform forced labor inappropriate for their age. According to the Commission, these children “were used as servants in the home, […] mistreated, beaten and force to work too hard.” The Commission emphasized that the children were subjected to forced labor with the acquiescence of Army personnel, and that their aggressors had forbidden them, under threat of death, from speaking with family members who might still be alive, should they pass them on the street. Based on all the foregoing, the Commission argued that Guatemala had violated Articles 6(2), 17 and 19 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Agustín Chen Osorio, Celestina Uscap Ivoy, Cruz Pérez Osorio, Froilan Uscap Ivoy, Jesús Tecú Osorio, José Osorio Osorio, Juan Chen Chen, Juan Chen Osorio, Juan Pérez Osorio, Juan Uscap Ivoy, Juana Chen Osorio, María Eustaquia Uscap Ivoy, Pedro Sic Sánchez, Silveria Lajuj Tum, Tomasa Osorio Chen, Florinda Uscap Ivoy and Juan Osorio Alvarado. 137. The representatives argued that the rights to dignity, personal freedom, and physical and mental integrity of 18 children who survived the massacre of Río Negro were violated, “because the only reason they were not murdered was so that they could be taken to Xococ to the homes of the members of the Civil Self-Defense Patrols (PAC) to be enslaved by those who had victimized their families, friends and acquaintances.”217 The also argued that “the fact that these children were subjected to a situation of slavery increased the destruction of their immediate family, and this added to the atrocities of which [the Río Negro] community was a victim.” Thus, “the State not only failed to ensure the full exercise of their rights, but also failed to provide the special protection to which every child is entitled.” On these grounds, the representatives indicated that the State had violated Articles 6, 17 and 19 of the American Convention, to the detriment of: Agustín Chen Osorio, 215 Testimony given by María Eustaquia Uscap Ivoy before notary public on June 15, 2012 (merits file, tome II, folios 1007 and 1009). 216 The Commission argued that during the forced labor, the children were threatened directly and implicitly with abuse or death or, in some cases, with violence against or the death of their surviving families, and had no option but to perform the tasks imposed on them. 217 They stated that “[the] children were selected as a workforce, servants in the homes of the members of the Civil Self-Defense Patrols, and were taught to perform all kinds of work, without receiving any remuneration and even without having decent living conditions.” 55