Néstor José Uzcátegui. It argued that this resulted in the family members suffering anxiety, insecurity, frustration and helplessness in the face of the State authorities, and that they could therefore be considered victims of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment.” Consequently, the Commission concluded that the State violated Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the parents of Néstor José Uzcátegui, Luis Gilberto Uzcátegui and Yrma Josefina Jiménez; his siblings, Carlos Eduardo, Luis Enrique, Irmely Gabriela, Paula Yulimar and Gleimar Coromoto; José Gregorio Mavarez Jiménez and José Leonardo Mavarez Jiménez and his niece Josianni de Jesús Mora Uzcátegui. 175. The representatives argued that Néstor José Uzcátegui’s family members suffered intensely because of the attacks against him, because of the violent circumstances surrounding his extrajudicial execution and because of the execution itself. As a result, the representatives said the family experienced deep feelings of anguish and pain, particularly because the perpetrators were those who, as members of the State security forces, were supposed to protect his life and safety. They also pointed out that “the violation of the personal integrity of Néstor José’s relatives continues today, given the absence of an effective investigation into the extrajudicial execution, which has resulted in a lack of prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators and masterminds of these acts.” Therefore, they consider that the State violated Article 5(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of members of the Uzcátegui family. 176. The State did not present specific arguments in this regard, but affirmed that it did not violate the right to humane treatment [personal integrity] of the rest of the family members. A.6. Alleged violation of he right to humane treatment [personal integrity] of Carlos Uzcátegui in relation to the State’s special obligation to protect him given his status as a minor 177. The Commission argued that Carlos Uzcátegui was a minor at the time of the events, and that therefore the State should have followed the procedure laid down in the national laws, according to which children are subject to a special jurisdiction and cannot be detained with adults. 178. The representatives essentially agreed with the view expressed by the Commission. 179. The State denied that it had violated the rights of the child, since Carlos Uzcátegui was an adolescent, seventeen years of age, as recorded in the police report dated January 1, 2001, and Venezuelan law considers a person as a child until the age of eleven, while a person aged twelve to seventeen is considered an adolescent. B. Considerations of the Court 180. The Court will now refer to the alleged violations to the right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention225, in relation to: 1) Néstor José 225 Article 5 of the American Convention states: “1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 3. Punishment shall not be extended to any person other than the criminal. 4. Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons, and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons. 5. Minors while subject to criminal proceedings shall be separated from adults and brought before specialized tribunals, as speedily as possible, so that they may be treated in accordance with their status as minors. 6. Punishments 44