46 prosecute, and punish the responsible parties, when there is an accusation or well-grounded 275 reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed. 238. In cases involving children, the Court has stated that the fact that the victims were children requires applying the highest standard in determining the seriousness of actions that violate their 276 right to humane treatment. 239. In the instant case, it has been demonstrated that, according to the autopsy, the body of Eduardo José Landaeta had, in addition to firearm wounds, other injuries that suggested prima facie that the victim had been subjected to torture or other cruel treatment. These injuries, unrelated to the firearm wounds, were: “a) Partial tear of the skin of the right gluteus like a burn, with similar characteristics on both elbows; b) Circular marks on the wrist joint of both hands, discretely deep and incomplete; and c) Bruising of the lower lip.” 240. The Commission feels that even the possibility that the minor Eduardo José was subjected to torture or other cruel treatment entailed a duty on the part of the State to initiate an ex officio investigation regarding possible acts of torture. The Commission notes that the Prosecutor for the Transitory Regime, in a memorandum submitted on November 30, 2004, recognized the existence of wounds other than those caused by the firearm, indicating that they had been inflicted by the officers who had custody of the victim earlier and not by the police who were carrying out the transfer. Despite all this, the State did not point to any inquiry designed to shed light on these facts and, if true, to punish the officers responsible. In response to this situation, Mr. Ignacio Landaeta on various occasions sought an investigation into possible acts of torture that, in his view, were confirmed in the autopsy, but even in response to an ex parte petition the State failed to initiate that investigation. 241. In addition, the Commission feels that the situation of unlawful and arbitrary deprivation of liberty in which Eduardo José found himself, in the absence of judicial control, in addition to the death of his brother Igmar Alexander – one month earlier – at the hand of officers of the same police corps in whose custody he found himself, and the threats that he had received previously, constituted a series of acts of cruel and inhumane treatment that affected his emotional and moral integrity, as he could 277 anticipate that this situation would culminate with this death, as effectively happened. 242. In conclusion, the Commission feels that i) the existence of wounds on the corpse of Eduardo José Landaeta suggesting the possible practice of torture; ii) the fact that the victim had spent two days in the custody of State security agents without any judicial control and following an illegal and arbitrary arrest; iii) the absence of an investigation to determine the cause of those wounds as well as those possibly responsible for them; and iv) the victim’s status as a minor child under such circumstances and the profound fear he felt knowing what his fate would be, are sufficient evidence to conclude that the Venezuelan State ignored its duty to respect and guarantee the right enshrined in Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the Convention to the detriment of the minor child Eduardo José Landaeta, in connection with the obligations established in Articles 19 and 1.1 of the same instrument. 243. The specific questions regarding the State’s lack of due diligence in the investigation of these facts will be analyzed in the section on the rights enshrined in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the Convention. E. The right to life and the duty to provide special protection for children with respect to the events surrounding the death of Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías 275 I/A Court HR. Escué Zapata v. Colombia Case. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C, No. 165. para. 74; I/A Court HR., Baldeón García Case. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C, No. 147. para. 117. para. 156; and I/A Court HR., Miguel Castro Castro. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C. No. 164. para. 89. 276 277 I/A Court HR., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C, No. 110. para. 170. In a similar vein, seer: I/A Court HR. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C, No. 167. para. 99.