and Manuel Chen Sánchez. The State indicated its “full acquiescence,” because both these persons were the only victims of forced disappearance identified by the InterAmerican Commission; 18. Nevertheless, the State’s answering brief explicitly opposed its international responsibility being declared for the following human rights violations: a) The violation of Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) and 19 (Rights of the Child) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof (Obligation to Respect Rights), “to the detriment of the adult and child members of the Río Negro community extrajudicially executed”; b) The violation of Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) and 11 (Right to Privacy) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this treaty, to the detriment of J.O.S., V.C., M.T. and, additionally, of Article 19 (Rights of the Child) of the Convention to the detriment of J.O.S., because, according to the Commission’s Merits Report, the alleged rape to which they were subjected took place before the date on which it accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction; c) The violation of Article 11(1) (respect for honor and dignity) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof (Obligation to Respect Rights), “because the said violations could have occurred between 1980 and 1982 when the massacres were perpetrated, at which time the State had not accepted the Court’s jurisdiction”; d) The violation of Article 21 (Right to Property) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof (Obligation to Respect Rights), because “the alleged facts took place before the State had accepted the Court’s jurisdiction,” and, as indicated by the representatives, “the victims were relocated to the Pacux settlement, the site of their current residence”; e) The violation of Article 24 (Right to Equal Protection) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof (Obligation to Respect Rights), “because the fact that they belonged to the Achí Maya group was not a factor that prevented them from being treated equally under Guatemalan law” and, moreover, the representatives “did not found this violation on factual situations”; f) The violation of Article 22 (Freedom of Movement and Residence) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. In this regard, the State specifically rejected the violation of freedom of movement, because “this phenomenon could not have continued after March 9, 1987,” the date on which Guatemala recognized the temporal competence of the Court”; g) The violation of Articles 8(1) (judicial guarantees) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, with regard to Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) thereof, because the Inter-American Commission did not specify to whose detriment the alleged violations were committed; h) The violation of Article 18 (Right to a Name) of the American Convention, because the representatives “did not relate any facts to the possible violation of the right contained in this provision,” and these supposed violations occurred before the State accepted the Court’s jurisdiction, and 10