positive measures to ensure the full exercise of the rights of the child.58 In this regard, it must pay special attention to the needs and the rights of children, based on their especially vulnerable situation.59 The State’s obligation to protect the best interests of children exists during any proceedings in which they are involved.60 Moreover, the “measures of protection” mentioned in Article 19 of the American Convention include those relating to non-discrimination, the prohibition of torture, and the conditions that must be observed in cases of the deprivation of the liberty of children.61 Lastly, the detention of minors must be exceptional and for the briefest period possible.62 56. The Court will now analyze the State’s obligation to respect the rights to life, and to personal integrity and liberty, and the rights of the child, of certain members of the Barrios family. It will then examine the obligation to prevent the violation of those rights and to guarantee them. D. Obligation to respect rights 1. Rights to life, personal integrity and personal liberty of Benito Antonio Barrios and Narciso Barrios i. Arguments of the parties 57. With regard to the detention and death of Benito Antonio Barrios, the Commission observed that: (a) the testimony of his next of kin coincided and was consistent as regards the main elements of the incident; (b) the prosecutor concluded that his death was preceded by his arrest, and therefore, could not be characterized as a confrontation, and (c) the State has not clarified what happened or explained satisfactorily whether the use of force was legitimate, proportionate or necessary. The State failed to comply with its obligation to respect the rights to personal integrity, personal liberty and life of Benito Antonio Barrios. Venezuela also failed to comply with its obligation to guarantee those rights by not conducting a serious and diligent investigation to clarify what happened to the victim, determine the legality of the use of lethal force, and, as appropriate, impose the corresponding punishments. Based on the foregoing, the State violated the rights established in Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 7(1) to 7(5) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Benito Antonio Barrios. 58. Regarding the murder of Narciso Barrios, the Commission stated that “he was extrajudicially executed by police officials of Aragua state,” basing itself, among other elements, on how the incident occurred, which was consistent with an extrajudicial September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 116, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 201. 58 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child, supra note 57, para. 91, and Case of Servellón García, supra note 57, para. 114. 59 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child, supra note 57, paras. 60, 86 and 93; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 184, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 57, para. 201. 60 Cf. Committee on the Rights of the Child. General comment No. 12: The right of the child to be heard, fifty-first session, 2009, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/GC/2009, 20 July 2009, para. 70. Also, cf. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 57, para. 201. 61 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 168. 62 Cf. Case of Bulacio, supra note 55, para. 135, and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 61, para. 169. 23