49 together with [..] Articles 1(1), 2 and 19 of this instrument, and 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará.” 129. The State indicated that “the right to life is respected and ensured by […] Guatemala, because it is recognized in Guatemalan law, and in the policies of the Republic” and that Guatemala is “aware that the obligation of States to protect the right to life is both negative and positive.” Accordingly, it indicated that it “has taken the pertinent measures to ensure the life of its population, giving everyone access to justice to obtain either safety or investigative measures from the Public Prosecution Service in order to prosecute anyone accused who it is possible to identify.” 130. The State also indicated that, in the instant case, it had not violated the right to life of María Isabel Veliz Franco, because, “in compliance with its obligations to respect and protect the said right, and aware of the phenomenon of violence, it had established child welfare and protection institutions by law.” In addition, it indicated that it “had […] created institutions that supervise and monitor the full enjoyment of human rights, as well as institutions to which recourse can be had in order to gain access to the system of justice.” The foregoing is designed “to share supervision of respect for and guarantee of the rights of the child with parents and guardians […], paying special attention to safeguarding the respect for and guarantee of the right to life of María Isabel.” It explained that: In principle, the family should provide the best protection of children against abuse, neglect and exploitation and, when the State was advised of María Isabel’s disappearance, that was when its obligation to intervene in the direct protection of the child started, because her effective safeguard was no longer in the hands of her family, and the State had established adequate policies and measures for the mother to request the help of the State. 131. Guatemala also asserted that: If it had been possible to identify the person or persons responsible for the tragic result of María Isabel’s disappearance, [it] would have applied the laws in force at the time the offense was committed in order to punish them; however, this has not been possible, despite the extensive efforts made by the investigating body […]; moreover, it is not possible to convict someone arbitrarily, even though the State repudiates what happened to the girl. B. Considerations of the Court 132. The Court notes that the representative has alleged, inter alia, failure to observe Article 2 of the Convention American.209 The Inter-American Commission did not indicate that this article had been violated in its submission brief or in the Merits Report. In this regard, the Court reiterates that “the presumed victims or their representatives may cite rights other than those included by the Commission, based on the facts presented by the latter.”210 The representative also alleged the violation of the rights to personal integrity and liberty recognized, respectively, in Articles 5 and 7 of the American Convention,211 to the detriment of María Isabel Veliz Franco. The Court notes that, in relation to the initial petition lodged before the Commission, the alleged violation of these two articles to the detriment of the minor had been declared inadmissible in the respective Admissibility Report. Nevertheless, this was based on a prima facie assessment of the facts by the Commission. 209 This article stipulates: “[w]here the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms.” 210 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra, para. 155, and Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, para. 22. 211 The pertinent part of Article 5 of the American Convention establishes: “1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” Article 7 of the Convention establishes: “1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. 2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto.”