4 17. The petitioners say that an administrative police investigation as well as a criminal investigation were opened but that they had yet to progress beyond the preliminary stage and no potential culprits had been identified. They indicate a series of irregularities, such as reiterated changes of prosecutors and the failure to perform basic investigative procedures. 18. Following, the IACHR summarizes the legal arguments of the petitioners with respect either of the two brothers. As regards to the right to life (Article 4 of the Convention), the petitioners argue that the State was responsible as they consider that both were extrajudicially executed and that the facts were not effectively investigated. 19. Specifically, with respect to Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías, they say that he was arbitrarily deprived of his life by agents of the regional police force, since they unnecessarily and unjustifiably used excessive force by shooting him in the back and then in the face with a firearm. Furthermore, the investigation was neither serious nor effective, nor was it initiated ex officio, which also engaged the responsibility of the State as it had failed its duty to ensure rights. 20. As for Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías, the petitioners note that the cause of death was 15 gunshot wounds sustained in police custody as he was being moved by the police in a vehicle owned by them. Based on the foregoing, they argue that, while there had been no judicial decision clarifying the facts, there is sufficient evidence to presume that the facts described are true and, given that the death occurred while the victim was in police custody, it is up to the State to disprove the alleged extrajudicial execution. Furthermore, they say that the absence of a diligent and effective investigation also constitutes a violation of the duty to ensure rights. 21. As regards the right to personal liberty (Article 7 of the Convention), the petitioners claim that Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías, was unlawfully and arbitrarily detained by State law enforcement agents. They point out that the unlawfulness of the arrest arose from the way in which the minor was detained, in disregard of the material and formal requirements that the law demands. They add that the arbitrary nature of the arrest is clear from the failure to notify his parents, the lack of information about the reasons for the arrest, his prevention from communicating with his parents for two days, the lack of timely notification of his transfer, the absence of immediate judicial control, and the lack of assistance by counsel. They add that all of these elements facilitated his subsequent extrajudicial execution. 22. With respect to Eduardo José, the petitioners also claim a violation of the obligation to provide the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor (Article 19 of the Convention ), given his child status, since the State omitted to adopt the measures necessary to ensure the protection he required from the time that he was detained until the moment that he was deprived of his life. 23. In respect of the right to humane treatment (Article 5 of the Convention) the petitioners claim that the brothers Landaeta Mejías and their next of kin are victims 24. In relation to Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías, they recall that the young man was intercepted and then executed, giving rise to suffering from the “profound fear at the real and imminent danger” of losing his life. Therefore, upon finding himself subjected to physical suffering--as a result of being shot and beaten--and to psychological and mental suffering caused by the fear he felt, the petitioners said that Igmar Alexander felt distress and anguish for his life and safety. 25. As for Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías, the petitioners say that his personal well-being was impaired by the manner in which he was detained, his being held incommunicado, the fact that he was in the custody of persons who had previously threatened his life, and the lack of contact with his family. Therefore, they hold that the situation was one of serious psychological torture, as Eduardo José was vulnerable and powerless at the moment of being transferred, without knowing what his fate would be. They say that as a result of the foregoing, Eduardo José was terrified, powerless, defenseless, and unprotected. The petitioners say that these facts are particularly serious considering Eduardo José’s child