2 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation with Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the same, in detriment of Marco Antonio Servellón García (16 years old), Rony Alexis Betancourth Vásquez (17 years old), Diomedes Obed García Sánchez (19 years old), and Orlando Álvarez Ríos (32 years old). Likewise, it requested that the Court issue a ruling regarding the violation by the State of Articles 5(5) (Right to Humane Treatment), 7(5) (Right to Personal Liberty), and 19 (Rights of the Child) of the Convention in relation with Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of said treaty, in detriment of the children Marco Antonio Servellón García and Rony Alexis Betancourth Vásquez, and of Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, in connection to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of said treaty, in detriment of the next of kin of the alleged victims. The Commission mentioned that it presented before the Court the petition due to the alleged inhumane and degrading conditions of detention of the alleged victims by the State; the blows and attacks against the personal integrity that they are mentioned as being the victims of by the police agents; their alleged death while they were detained under the custody of police agents; as well as the alleged lack of investigation and right to a fair trial that characterize their cases, which are still in impunity more than “nine” years after the facts occurred. Marco Antonio Servellón García, Rony Alexis Betancourth Vásquez, Orlando Álvarez Ríos and Diomedes Obed García Sánchez, were allegedly arrested, between September 15 and 16, 1995, during a preventive detention or operation carried out by the Public Security Force of that time (hereinafter “FUSEP”).1 State agents allegedly extra judicially killed the four youngsters and their bodies were found on September 17, 1995 out in the open in different places of the city of Tegucigalpa, Honduras. 3. The Commission requested that the Court, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, order the State to adopt certain measures of reparation indicated in the petition. Finally, it requested that the Tribunal order the State to pay the costs and expenses generated in the processing of the case in the domestic jurisdiction and before the bodies of the Inter-American system. II COMPETENCE 4. The Inter-American Court is competent to hear the present case, in the terms of Articles 62 and 63(1) of the Convention, since Honduras is a State Party in the American Convention since September 8, 1977 and it acknowledged the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Court on September 9, 1981. III PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION 1 In 1993 a police reform process was started which resulted, in the year 1998, in the enactment of the Organic Police Law (Decree Number 156/98), which substituted the Organic Law of the Public Security Force (Decree Number 369 of August 16, 1976). Pursuant to the new Law, the Preventive Police and the Investigation Police were merged under the responsibility of the General Authority of Criminal Investigation attached to the State Security Secretary. The hierarchal structure of the Public Security Force (FUSEP) was modified when it was transformed into the National Police, going from a military organization to a police organization.