Celestina Uscap Ivoy, Cruz Pérez Osorio, Froilan Uscap Ivoy, Jesús Tecú Osorio, José Osorio Osorio, Juan Chen Chen, Juan Chen Osorio, Juan Pérez Osorio, Juan Uscap Ivoy, Juana Chen Osorio, María Eustaquia Uscap Ivoy, Pedro Sic Sánchez, Silveria Lajuj Tum, Tomasa Osorio Chen, Florinda Uscap Ivoy, Juan Osorio Alvarado and Bernarda Lajuj Osorio 138. The State “express[ed] its partial acknowledgment of the violations of the human rights protected in Articles 6 and 17 of the [Convention],” to the detriment of Agustín Chen Osorio, Celestina Uscap Ivoy, Cruz Pérez Osorio, Froilan Uscap Ivoy, Jesús Tecú Osorio, José Osorio Osorio, Juan Chen Chen, Juan Chen Osorio, Juan Pérez Osorio, Juan Uscap Ivoy, Juana Chen Osorio, María Eustaquia Uscap Ivoy, Pedro Sic Sánchez, Silveria Lajuj Tum, Tomasa Osorio Chen, Florinda Uscap Ivoy and Juan Burrero: that is, Juan Osorio Alvarado (supra para. 17(d)). The foregoing, “because the said human rights violations could transcend and persist during the time over which the Court has competence to hear violations against the State […].” With regard to Article 19 of the Convention, the State “acknowledge[d] its responsibility regarding those children who were under 18 years of age when the Court’s competence was ratified […]. Regarding the victim Maria Eustaquia Uscap Ivoy, the State […] denie[d] the violation of this right,” because she was already of age when it accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction (supra paras. 17(e) and 18(i)). B.2. Considerations of the Court 139. In its answer to the submission of the case, the State acknowledged “partial” responsibility for the violation of the rights recognized in Articles 6 and 17 of the Convention, to the detriment of Agustín Chen Osorio, Celestina Uscap Ivoy, Cruz Pérez Osorio, Froilan Uscap Ivoy, Jesús Tecú Osorio, José Osorio Osorio, Juan Chen Chen, Juan Chen Osorio, Juan Pérez Osorio, Juan Uscap Ivoy, Juana Chen Osorio, María Eustaquia Uscap Ivoy, Pedro Sic Sánchez, Silveria Lajuj Tum, Tomasa Osorio Chen, Florinda Uscap Ivoy and Juan Burrero (the latter also known as Juan Osorio Alvarado), because “the said human rights violations could transcend and persist during the time when the Court has competence.” In addition, the State acknowledged its responsibility for the violation of Article 19 of the Convention to the detriment of all the persons mentioned who were under 18 years of age when it accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on March 9, 1987. In this regard, the State specifically rejected the declaration of the violation of Article 19 of the Convention to the detriment of María Eustaquia Uscap Ivoy. 140. In view of the State’s acknowledgment, the Court will analyze the violations of the right to personal integrity of the persons mentioned in the preceding paragraph that persist to date. To this end, the Court will include some general considerations on the prohibition of slavery and servitude established in Article 6 of the Convention, as well as on the rights of the child and the family recognized in Articles 19 and 17 of this treaty. The Court will not refer in this section to Bernarda Lajuj Osorio, who, according to the information provided by the representatives, is a survivor of the Los Encuentros massacre (supra paras. 12 and 46). 141. According to Article 6 of the Convention, “[n]o one shall be subject to slavery or to involuntary servitude, which are prohibited in all their forms, as are the slave trade and traffic in women.” In its well-known obiter dictum in the judgment issued in the case of the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, the International Court of Justice stipulated that, under contemporary international law, protection from slavery and racial 56