rights to humane treatment, judicial guarantees, and judicial protection recognized in Articles 5.1, 8.1, and 25.1 of the American Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1.1 of that instrument, to the detriment of the family members of José Delfín Acosta Martínez identified in the relevant section of this report. The IACHR made the corresponding recommendations. II. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. Petitioners 6. The petitioners stated that on April 5, 1996, José Delfín Acosta Martínez, a Uruguayan of African descent was detained when he was talking to a Brazilian, also of African descent, named Wagner Gonçalves Da Luz and his girlfriend. They pointed out that several people, including Wagner's brother, Marcelo Gonçalves Da Luz, rebuked the police for acting arbitrarily and that for that reason the police also arrested the young Marcelo. 7. They added that José Delfín Acosta told the police that he was a Uruguayan national and the young people were Brazilians; that he had been doing nothing wrong and that they had been detained arbitrarily and "evidently because they were black." The petitioners stressed that the three detainees were searched by the police, who ascertained that none of them was bearing arms for which they might have been accused of committing some crime. They added that all three detainees were taken to Police Station No. 5 of the Argentine Federal Police. The petitioners affirmed that José Delfín Acosta had been handcuffed and brutally beaten until he lost consciousness and was seriously wounded. They said that several witnesses saw him being taken out of the police station, naked on a stretcher, suffering convulsions, and being put into an ambulance in which he died. They insisted that it was the blows he had received that caused his death. 8. They maintained that the justification adduced by the authorities for arresting José Delfín Acosta was based on two arguments: i) an alleged anonymous complaint of rowdiness by someone drunk carrying a weapon; and ii) application of the "ban on drunkenness" edict in effect at that time. The petitioners argued that it had never been proved that the police had received such a complaint over the phone and that the police edicts authorizing the police to detain people disturbing the peace were repealed as unconstitutional in 1998. 9. The petitioners emphasized that José Delfín Acosta Martínez had devoted himself to defending the human rights of "Africans and persons of African descent", and to disseminating their culture and customs. They stated that his family members had done everything they could to throw light on what had happened but had been met with "systematized corruption." They said that the investigation judge had shelved the case twice, without pursuing the evidence provided by the plaintiffs in order to throw light on the facts of the case. 10. The petitioners reported that Ángel Acosta, José Delfín Acosta's brother, had felt forced to seek political asylum in Spain because of the telephone tapping, threats, and attacks to which he had been subjected. 11. In light of the above, the petitioners maintained that the State had violated the right to humane treatment/personal integrity and right to life of José Delfín Acosta, particularly since, while in the custody of the Argentine authorities, he had been beaten to death. They also argued that the State had violated José Delfín Acosta's right to personal liberty, since he had been detained unjustifiably and without being informed of the reasons for his detention. 12. They likewise stated that the Argentine State is responsible for violating the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, given that the judge responsible for investigating the death of José Delfín Acosta twice decided to archive the case, without accepting testimony and evidence offered by family members, or confronting those involved and or ordering expert tests on José Delfín's clothes and belongings to prove that they had not been washed. The petitioners claimed that the authorities lacked impartiality and objectivity and that the higher courts hearing the various appeals filed failed to conduct an in-depth investigation and merely endorsed the arguments of the court of first instance.