202. In conclusion, although it does not have evidence to establish the State’s responsibility for the violation of Article 5(2) of the Convention, based on the injuries found on Eduardo Landaeta’s body, the Court observes that the State has not provided an explanation of their origin. Furthermore, based on the evidence and the denunciation of possible acts that constitute violations of humane treatment, the State did not conduct any investigation to clarify the facts and, as appropriate, establish the responsibility of those involved. 239 203. In addition, the Court finds that the situation of arbitrary and unlawful deprivation of liberty of Eduardo Landaeta in the absence of judicial control, added to the situation of danger that the authorities were made aware of, as well as the death of his brother at the hands of agents of the same police unit, facts that gave rise to suffering and anguish and also resulted in his death, and taking into account his condition as a minor, all reveal that the State failed to guarantee and respect the right to mental and moral integrity, 240 recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 19 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Eduardo Landaeta. B.4 Conclusion with regard to Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías 204. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the State of Venezuela responsible for the violation of paragraphs 1 to 5 of Article 7 and Articles 4 and 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 19 of this instrument, to the detriment of Eduardo Landaeta. VII-3 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION WITH REGARD TO IGMAR ALEXANDER AND EDUARDO JOSÉ LANDAETA MEJÍAS A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 205. The Commission indicated that the State of Venezuela failed to comply with the obligation to conduct a diligent investigation within a reasonable time into the death of Igmar, and in relation to the detention, violation of personal integrity and death of Eduardo, both surnamed Landaeta Mejías. It also concluded that the State had failed to comply with the obligation to provide judicial guarantees and judicial protection because the investigations were conducted in isolation and separately without examining the possible connection and interrelationship between the deaths of the two brothers, despite the existence of threats against them, and because it did not consider whether the deaths were inserted in the pattern of extrajudicial executions that existed at the time of the events, which constituted an additional factor of impunity in the two cases. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the State had not provided the next of kin of the Landaeta Mejías brothers with an effective judicial remedy to establish the truth of the events, the punishment of both perpetrators and masterminds, and adequate reparation. It therefore established that the State of Venezuela had violated the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of the next of kin of the Landaeta brothers. 206. Regarding Igmar Landaeta, the Commission indicated that the investigations and the criminal proceedings were not conducted diligently or within a reasonable time, owing to a series of omissions, in particular: (a) several periods of inactivity in the 239 Cf. United Nations. Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter “Istanbul Protocol”), paras. 78 and 79. 240 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 163, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 204. 53