60 (a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. [...]; (b) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time; (c) Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age. In particular, every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances; (d) Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a prompt decision on any such action. 168. The provisions transcribed above allow us to specify, in several directions, the scope of the “measures of protection” mentioned in Article 19 of the American Convention. Several such measures stand out, including those pertaining to nondiscrimination, prohibition of torture, and the conditions that must exist in cases of deprivation of the liberty of children. 169. On the other hand, in light of these provisions and in connection with detention of minors, as this Court pointed out and is recognized in various international instruments, it must be exceptional and for the briefest possible period.129 170. Also, as the Court analyzed the matter in the chapter on abridgment of Article 5 of the Convention and the provisions of the Inter-American Convention against Torture (supra para. 117), the fact that the alleged victims were children requires applying the highest standard in determining the seriousness of actions that violate their right to humane treatment. 171. Finally, as the Court already pointed out in a previous chapter (supra para. 124), the obligation of the State to respect the right to life of every person under its jurisdiction has special modalities in the case of minors, as follows from the provisions on the protection of children set forth in the American Convention and in the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and it becomes an obligation to “prevent situations that might lead, by action or omission, to negatively affect it”.130 172. This Court finds that the acts against Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri in the instant case, in which agents of the State were involved, clearly breach these preventions, pursuant to what was set forth in previous chapters (supra paras. 100, 117, 133 and 156). 173. Based on the above, the Court finds that the State violated the right to special measures of protection for minors, set forth in Article 19 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri. XIV PROTECTION OF HONOR AND DIGNITY AND PROTECTION OF THE FAMILY 129 See Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 135; likewise, see Article 37(b) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and Rules 13 and 19 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules) (1985). 130 See Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 138.