106 experience of standing trial has on a child, were missing from the pertinent Paraguayan laws, at least until 2001. 213. For the foregoing reasons the Court concludes that by failing to establish, until 2001, a specialized court jurisdiction for children in conflict with the law or a proceeding other than the one followed in the case of adults and that adequately provided for their special status, the State violated Articles 2 and 8(1) of the Convention, both in relation to Articles 19 and 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the children who were interned at the Center in the period from August 14, 1996 to July 25, 2001. 214. On the other hand, the Court welcomes the work that the State has accomplished through its recent legislative, administrative and other reforms (supra para. 134(57)), as those reforms take on special importance vis-à-vis the protection of juvenile offenders. In the case sub judice, it is not for this Court to decide whether the current laws are compatible with the American Convention. * * * 215. The Court notes that in the instant case, both the Commission and the representatives have alleged patterns or systematic practices that violated Article 8 of the American Convention, to the detriment of all the inmates interned at the Center in the period between August 14, 1996 and July 25, 2001. The Commission, on the one hand, alleged that the practice meant, inter alia, that inmates were not given a hearing within a reasonable period, and spent long periods in preventive detention. The representatives, for their part, alleged that a routine practice existed that was a violation of international standards for the protection of the child and involved, inter alia, the following: a) unwarranted delays in rendering final judgments on cases; b) unsatisfactory legal counsel provided to the children; and c) a failure to investigate those responsible for the detention conditions at the Center. Both the Commission and the representatives reason, therefore, that the State bears the burden of proof in the case of these practices that, they allege, violated Article 8 of the Convention; in other words, the State must show proof of individual cases in which such violations of the judicial guarantees of the inmates at the Center did not occur. 216. This Court deems that general facts related to certain judicial guarantees of the inmates at the Center have been established (supra para. 134.18 a 134.24), such as the slow pace of the inmates’ cases and the poor legal counsel provided to them. The foregoing notwithstanding, in order for the Court to determine whether a violation of specific judicial guarantees provided for in Article 8(2) of the Convention has occurred, the Commission and/or the representative of the alleged victim must provide the information necessary for the State, if it can, to demonstrate to this Court that it has complied with the obligations that arise out of that provision. In the instant case, that information on individual cases was not provided. 217. Although the Court has frequently used patterns of conduct or practices as a means of evidence to determine that human rights were violated, it has always done so when the finding is supported by other specific pieces of evidence. In the case of Article 8 of the American Convention, the Court needs information about each individual victim and how his case was dealt with in the domestic courts. The InterAmerican Court was not given that kind of information in the instant case.