Barrios, Elbira Barrios, Rigoberto Barrios, Oscar José Barrios and Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño. 85. Furthermore, the State’s obligation to respect the rights to life and to integrity of all persons under its jurisdiction has special mechanisms in the case of minors, as revealed by the provisions on the protection of children established in the American Convention and in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and becomes an obligation to “prevent situations that might lead, by act or omission, to the violation of those rights.”97 In this regard, the Court has indicated that, according to its case law and other international instruments, the detention of children “must be exceptional and for the shortest time possible” (supra para. 55). The Court observes that Rigoberto Barrios, Oscar José Barrios and Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño were minors at the time of the events, so that the detentions, assaults and threats of which they were victims were more serious and were even expressed in their most extreme form, since they were threatened with death.98 Consequently, the Court finds that the State violated the right to special protection, based on their status as minors, of Rigoberto Barrios, Oscar José Barrios and Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño, established in Article 19 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 3. Rights to life and personal integrity, and rights of the child of Rigoberto Barrios i. Arguments of the parties 86. Regarding the attempt on the life of Rigoberto Barrios on January 9, 2005, the Commission indicated that “the characteristics of the incident, namely, forcing the friend of Rigoberto Barrios to withdraw with her head lowered, the number of bullet wounds, the abandonment of the injured victim at the scene of the incident and the death threats received previously, reveal that Rigoberto Barrios was physically injured in violation of his personal integrity with the evident intention of killing him and, in such a way that the danger to his life was evident.” It also stressed that Rigoberto Barrios had already been detained and threatened with death by the police in 2004, and that “in the general context of persecution of the Barrios family, […] those involved are officials of the Aragua state police.” Based on the above, the Commission concluded the participation of State agents in the injuries caused to Rigoberto Barrios. 87. Regarding the obligation to guarantee rights, the Commission affirmed that the State was obliged to adopt special measures of protection owing to: (a) his condition as a child; (b) the existing risk to his life; (c) his situation, of which the State was aware, and (d) his status as a beneficiary of provisional measures of protection ordered by the Court. In addition, it stressed that the State failed to conduct to serious and diligent investigation of the facts in order to determine what happened and identify and punish those responsible. It emphasized that “the violation [of personal integrity resulted] not [only] from the serious injuries inflicted on January 9, 2005, but also from the physical and mental suffering which it is reasonable to infer that he experienced from that date until his death as the result of being shot, and the consequent fear of dying or being permanently injured.” Based on the foregoing, the Commission concluded that Venezuela had failed to comply with its special obligation of respect and guarantee in relation to the rights to life and to personal integrity of Rigoberto Barrios, and also disregarded its special obligation of protection in relation to 97 Cf. Case of Bulacio, supra note 55, para. 138, and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 38, para. 171. 98 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, para. 162, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., supra note 94, para. 109. 33