18 not separated from the adults at the time of their arrest and they remained in the police cells, which exposed them to damaging circumstances for the minors, nor were measures adopted so that the children could have contact with their next of kin or that a minor’s judge revise the legality of their arrest, and v) by being detained in a clandestine manner the alleged victims were deprived of their right to make use of a simple and effective recourse to guarantee their liberty (habeas corpus), in violation of Article 7(6) of the Convention; b) acknowledged the violation of Article 4 of the Convention, in detriment of the four alleged victims, since their death was caused and the fact occurred while they were under the custody of State agents; c) acknowledged the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, in detriment of the four alleged victims, for the tortures and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatments to which they were submitted, as proven by physical evidence at the time of the disinterment; d) acknowledged the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, since in the way in which the facts occurred it was not possible to provide the four detainees who were later murdered with an effective protection through the recourse of habeas corpus. With regard to the “pardon” allegedly granted by the Police Judge Roxana Sierra, as has been argued by the State, what happened was that there was “a bad use of the term” by the police officials; e) acknowledged that the results produced in the investigation have not been up to now adequate and that, therefore, Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention have been violated by omission, in detriment of the next of kin of the alleged victims, but it rejected that the facts have not been investigated, and f) it acknowledged having violated the rights mentioned, since “there has still not been an adequate sanction for the perpetrators [of the] crime.” 56. In its observations to the State’s acquiescence, the Commission indicated, inter alia, that a) the controversy on the facts described in paragraphs 27 through 106 of the application has ceased, as well as regarding the allegations made in this sense by the representatives in their brief of pleadings and motions, with the exception of the context in which the facts occurred described in paragraphs 23 through 26 of the application. In what refers to the facts not acknowledged by the State regarding the alleged context of violence in which they occurred, the Commission mentioned that the evidence provided in a timely manner proves a context of violence and immunity, and that the verification of the context is essential in qualifying the violations for which the State has assumed responsibility and, especially, in defining the reparations whose execution results imperative in order to guarantee the prevention of similar violations; b) the State acknowledged the violation of the Articles of the Convention argued by the Commission in its application, but presented some considerations on the way in which, in its opinion, said violations occurred. Therefore, the Commission considers that the facts and reasons in which the State substantiates said acknowledgment do not correspond integrally to the arguments presented by it. In that sense, the Commission mentioned that in the present case a situation of impunity has presented itself, since more than “nine” years after the facts occurred those responsible for the extra judicial