B.4 Conclusion with regard to Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías 147. Therefore, the Court determines that, at the time of the events, the State did not have a legal framework or provide the relevant training to law enforcement agents, including intelligence agents. In addition, in response to the use of force against Igmar Landaeta, the State did not prove that it had respected the principle of proportionality, because extreme measures and lethal force were used that resulted in the arbitrary deprivation of his life. In addition, the State failed to comply with its obligation to provide assistance in keeping with the principles of due diligence and humanity to persons injured by the use of force. The foregoing violated the obligation to respect and ensure the right to life established in Article 4 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Igmar Landaeta. 148. Lastly, the Court notes that the representatives and the Commission alleged the violation of the right to humane treatment (Article 5 of the Convention) of Igmar Landaeta owing to the suffering he endured before his death. In this regard, the Court considers that it is not necessary to rule on other arguments relating to the same facts, because it finds that, in this case, this violation has been examined under Article 4 of the Convention. 190 VII-2 RIGHTS TO LIFE, TO HUMANE TREATMENT, TO PERSONAL LIBERTY, AND RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND ENSURE THESE RIGHTS WITH REGARD TO EDUARDO JOSÉ LANDAETA MEJÍAS A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 149. The Commission indicated, with regard to the right to personal liberty, that the detention of Eduardo Landaeta was unlawful and arbitrary, because it was implemented without a court order, and in the absence of a situation of in flagrante delicto, as required by domestic law. In addition, he was detained without his parents being informed immediately about his detention and its reasons, and without bringing him before a competent authority to conduct the respective judicial control. The Commission also indicated that it had no information that a public defender had been notified. The detention lasted two days without being subject to judicial control, so that the guarantee of “prompt judicial control” was violated. The Commission therefore indicated that the State had violated the guarantees established in Article 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4) and 7(5) of the American Convention, and that it did not take into account the presumed victim’s special condition as a child, pursuant to the obligations established in Articles 19 and 1(1) of this instrument. 150. Regarding the right to life, the Commission determined that, once in State custody, the necessary measures were not taken to protect Eduardo Landaeta’s life in his special situation of vulnerability, both because of his condition as a child and because of the threats he had received previously. In addition, numerous circumstantial factors point to the execution of Eduardo Landaeta by the police, such as: the death of his brother “a month and a half before”; the threats made by police agents, through his mother, including a death threat, and the warning given by two agents of the danger that Eduardo Landaeta was in when his father went to the police station. The State failed to conduct a diligent investigation in order to provide a satisfactory answer to the death of a child in its custody and to punish those responsible. In addition, it did not provide a definitive judicial response to what happened that would disprove the presumption of 190 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, paras. 132, 150 and 202, and Case of Luna López, supra, para. 140. 39