45 153. Specifically, the Court considers that the indiscriminate and permissive use of judicial remedies such as the appeal for legal protection, which has been used as a pillar of impunity, along with the unjustified and deliberate delay by the judicial authorities, as well as the lack of a complete and thorough investigation of all of the facts of the massacre, have prevented the investigation, prosecution, and eventual punishment of those allegedly responsible. Based on the previous considerations and on the State’s partial recognition of responsibility, the Court finds the State responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and for the obligations established in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the CIPST and 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of the 155 victims of the instant case, in their corresponding circumstances. 154. Likewise, the Court finds the State responsible for noncompliance with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, due to the lack of adoption of both legal and practical measures to guarantee the effectiveness of the appeal for legal protection. IX ARTICLES 17163 (RIGHTS OF THE FAMILY), 164 (RIGHT TO A NAME) AND 19165 (RIGHTS OF THE CHILD) OF THE AMERICAN 18 166 THEREOF CONVENTION, IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) 155. In this chapter the Court will analyze the alleged violation of the rights of the family, right to a name, and rights of the child, recognized in Articles 17, 18, and 19 of the Convention, to the detriment of Ramiro Osorio Cristales. 156. First, the Court deems it necessary to refer to the situation of the other child survivor of the massacre, Salomé Gómez Hernández, for whom the representatives claimed the violation of the rights of the child recognized in Article 19 of the American Convention, inter alia, given that the State did not provide him with “the special protective measures given his condition as a minor […]” and for the “pain caused by witnessing the facts of the massacre [and having been] obligated to live in extreme poverty.” However, the Court considers that the facts related to the arguments of an independent violation of Article 19 of the Convention in detriment of Salomé Gómez Hernández, fall within the right recognized in Article 5 of said instrument, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 19 thereof, which will be analyzed in the following chapter. Consequently, the Court will not address that violation in this section of the Judgment. 157. Regarding Ramiro Osorio Cristales, the representatives claimed the violation of the rights of the family and the right to a name, enshrined in Articles 17 and 18 of the American Convention, given that “he was forced to live […] with a family that was not his own and with a name different from that given to him by his parents” and “a different name was imposed on him, thus affecting his identity”. Additionally, they 163 In this regard, Article 17(1) indicates that “[t]he family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.” 164 Article 18 establishes that “[e]very person has the right to a given name and to the surnames of his parents or that of one of them. The law shall regulate the manner in which this right shall be ensured for all, by the use of assumed names if necessary.” 165 Article 19 establishes that “[e]very minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the state.” 166 Cf. Article 1(1), supra note 41.