-9- a. Regarding the alleged violations of Articles 5, 7 and 11 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument: i. “In this case, the State’s institutions removed the children from their mother because she was not complying with the obligation to care for and protect her children satisfactorily. As the result of a complaint, the Attorney General’s Office took the children from their mother because they were in a situation that entailed risk (without adult care and unprotected) and they were referred to an institution in order to protect them. Such procedures were established by the laws in force at the time. ii. The “actions of certain public institutions described in the Merits Report reveal that [the] right[s] guaranteed to the Ramírez brothers in [Articles] 7 and 11 of the [Convention] could have been violated, among other reasons because they were placed in a private institution for seventeen months and deprived of contact with the members of their family.” It also considered that “notwithstanding the actions of the institutions involved, it regrets that the laws in force might have allowed a declaration of abandonment to be sufficient to make the children available for adoption, thus violating their right to a family.” iii. “Taking into account the [Commission’s] conclusion, the case law of the […] Court, the actions of certain State institutions, and the laws in force at the time, the State acknowledges that, although the latter aspects have now been harmonized with current international principles, the situation described could represent a presumed violation of the right to personal integrity (Art. 5) of the Ramírez brothers and their family members, as well as of the rights to personal liberty (Art. 7) and protection of honor and dignity (Art. 11) of the Ramírez brothers.” b. Regarding the alleged violations of Articles 17, 18 and 19 of the Convention: i. “This family was separated owing to the mother’s neglect of the children in their home. However, the State’s intention was to restore their right to a family by means of the adoption. The State of Guatemala acknowledges that this interpretation violated the rights of the family and that it failed to apply the principle which indicates that priority must be given to the family unit or environment to ensure the adequate development of the child and respect for the right to a family.” ii. “By violating their rights to integrity and to a family, their right to a name was also violated.” “The State acknowledges that the family, name, nationality and family ties are elements that constitute the right to an identity.” iii. “The State considers that, in the instant case, the rights of the Ramírez brothers were, indeed, violated because neither the family nor the State, in its capacity of guarantor, were able to ensure their protection and development.” iv. “Based on the actions of the competent bodies that removed the children from their biological mother, the fact that they were placed in a private institution and that, subsequently, their intercountry adoption was permitted so that they would live in another country, all the rights cited in Articles 17, 18 and 19 were violated to the detriment of the Ramírez brothers.” c. Regarding the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention: i. “The State acknowledges and regrets that, although the laws contained previously established judicial procedures and the corresponding means of appeal existed, when the latter were filed, they were processed incorrectly by the courts and were not