60 215. Based on all of the previous considerations, the Court values that the two then children Ramiro Osorio Cristales and Salomé Gómez Hernández, have suffered infringements to their physical and psychological health, particularly from the prolonged lack of justice and impunity in the instant case, and that said experiences have affected their social and work relations, altered their family dynamics, and continue causing suffering and fear that the aggressions could repeat themselves or that their lives could be threatened. The psychological damages and lasting suffering by Ramiro Osorio Cristales, who had to live away from his family, with another name and identity are also evident. 216. The Court deems that the State omitted adopting the appropriate positive measures to protect Ramiro Osorio Cristales and Salomé Gómez Hernández from the situation of lack of protection that they were in, as of 1987, when Guatemala recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, to ensure and guarantee their rights as children239. The State therefore failed to comply with its obligation to protect, to the detriment of Ramiro Osorio Cristales and Salomé Gómez Hernández, since 1987 and until the years 1994 and 1989, respectively, when they reached their legal age. * * * 217. In view of the foregoing, the Court deems that in the instant case, the gravity of the facts of the massacre and the lack of a judicial response to clarify them has affected the personal integrity of the 153 alleged victims, next of kin of those deceased in the massacre. The psychological damage and suffering that they have endured due to the impunity that still persists, 15 years after the investigation began, makes the State responsible for the violation of the right recognized in Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the aforementioned individuals. Also, based on the aforementioned reasons, and for the particular conditions indicated regarding the two survivors of the massacre, the Court deems that the State violated Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 19 thereof, to the detriment of Ramiro Osorio Cristales and Salomé Gómez Hernández. XI ARTICLE 21 (RIGHT TO PROPERTY) 240 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION, 241 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) THEREOF 218. Regarding the right to property recognized in Article 21 of the Convention, neither the Commission in its application nor the representatives in their brief of pleadings and motions, claimed the violation of said right. The State also did not refer to said Article in its brief of answer to the application. 219. Nevertheless, during the public hearing held in the instant case, the alleged victim Felicita Herenia Romero Ramirez expressed that she requested “the recovery [of] our lands[,] because […] we were deprived of everything we had there […] We were dispossessed of everything.” In this regard, during that hearing, the representatives expressed that “the entire community was distributed [and that] today […] it is private property.” The State claimed that it had “no information that 239 Cf. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra note 204, para. 91. 240 In this regard, Article 21 establishes that “[n]o one shall be deprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and in the cases and according to the forms established by law.” 241 Cf. Article 1(1), supra note 41.