DECLARES, unanimously, that: 2. The State is responsible for the violation of the obligation to respect and to ensure the right to life recognized in Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías, in the terms of paragraphs 122 to 147 of this Judgment. 3. The State is responsible for the violation of the right to personal liberty, recognized in Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4) and 7(5), as well as for the violation of the obligation to respect and to ensure the rights to life and to humane treatment, recognized in Articles 4 and 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, all in relation to Articles 1(1) and 19 of this instrument, to the detriment of Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías, in the terms of paragraphs 154 to 204 of this Judgment. 4. The State is responsible for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of the members of the Landaeta Mejías brothers’ family, in the terms of paragraphs 214 to 275 of this Judgment. 5. The State is responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity, recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of the members of the Landaeta Mejías brothers’ family, in the terms of paragraphs 279 to 289 of this Judgment. 6. It is not incumbent on the Court to rule on the alleged violation of the right to humane treatment, recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías, in the terms of paragraph 148 of this Judgment. 7. It does not have sufficient evidence to conclude that the State violated the right to humane treatment, recognized in Article 5(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías, in the terms of paragraph 201 of this Judgment. AND ESTABLISHES unanimously, that: 8. This Judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation. By four votes to one, dissenting Judge Roberto F. Caldas, that: 9. With regard to Igmar Landaeta, the State must investigate and clarify the facts and, as appropriate, determine responsibilities, within a reasonable time, in the terms of paragraphs 298 and 299 of this Judgment. 10. With regard to Eduardo Landaeta, the State must continue and conclude, within a reasonable time, the investigation into the facts described in the ordinary jurisdiction and, as appropriate, punish those responsible, in the terms of paragraph 300 of this Judgment. unanimously, that: 93