51 perpetrators, in some cases were identified as Treasury Police agents, which suggests that all these acts were committed by agents of the State, and the latter has not proven its assertion to the contrary. 94. At the same time, it has been shown that despite the Guatemalan police’s investigation of the acts, considered to be exhaustive by the parties to the instant Case, the State Judiciary failed to take diligent and effective measures to prosecute and, where appropriate, punish those responsible for the acts. 95. Consequently, there is sufficient evidence in this case to conclude that the above-mentioned acts were committed by persons acting as agents of the authorities, and although this Court deems that the violations denounced are not part of State policy or that the senior authorities knew of the actions of the perpetrators, those circumstances were irrelevant to the effects of establishing Guatemala’s international responsibility as a State Party to the Convention, under which it is obliged to ensure to all persons, in this case the victims, the free and full exercise of their human rights. XI VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 7 96. The Commission claims that Guatemala violated the right to personal liberty and security to the detriment of Ms. Ana Elizabeth Paniaguia-Morales, Mr. Julián Salomón Gómez-Ayala, Mr. William Otilio González-Rivera, Pablo Corado-Barrientos, Manuel de Jesús González-López, Mr. Augusto Angárita-Ramírez, Ms. Doris Torres-Gil, Mr. José Antonio-Montenegro, Mr. Oscar Vásquez and Mr. Marco Antonio MontesLetona, inasmuch as the persons who arbitrarily detained them, tortured them and, in some cases, murdered them were agents of the State. The Commission claims that the arrests were arbitrary because there is no information that "even one of the kidnappings was carried out with a warrant or that they conformed to pre-existing procedural or fundamental laws." The State investigated the events as unlawful acts and supplied the Commission with information proving the responsibility of the Treasury Police agents. The Commission also underscored the fact that the Guatemalan National Police itself "concluded that the Treasury Police had ‘abused its power to the detriment of the public and [had] violated the rights of Guatemalan citizens.’" 97. The Commission pointed out that the arbitrary deprivation of the victims’ liberty in this case obstructed access to an effective remedy of habeas corpus, since the victims were not taken to officially recognized detention centers, but to Treasury Police premises where they were held incommunicados. The victims who lost their lives were not registered as detainees in any official document. 98. According to the Commission, Guatemala’s Political Constitution requires that any detainee be brought before a competent judicial authority within a maximum of six hours after his or her detention. The Commission alleged that in everey case this provision was breached. 99. The Commission contended that in the case of Mr. Vásquez and Mr. Montenegro the State’s claim that they were arrested while dealing in drugs was entirely unfounded, inasmuch as the sworn statements of the victims and witnesses did not corroborate this version, nor did the acts of the Guatemalan National Police, who included these cases in its investigation of the "white van case." 100. In its answer to the application, the State denied that it had violated the right to liberty of the persons indicated to that effect in the Commission’s application (supra, para. 96), since there was nothing to suggest any intentionality on the part of