113 b) the juveniles did not have a simple and prompt recourse to competent judges or courts in the event that their physical, mental and moral integrity, liberty or security was in danger in a juvenile Reeducation Institute; c) the petition of habeas corpus filed on their behalf and granted, was paralyzed for two years, reviewed and then delayed for another year before a ruling was issued, which meant that they did not obtain the “brief and summary” finding that Paraguay’s Constitution requires; d) the writ of habeas corpus was ineffective, as the State authorities did not comply with the ruling ordering the transfer of the alleged victims to a proper center, nor were those measures supervised by the court, as the court that granted the writ had ordered; e) the anachronistic system in place prevented effective supervision of the court ruling and continual review of the sanctions imposed; f) the remedies attempted to ascertain the authorities’ blame for the human rights violations at the Center were ineffective; and g) the investigations into the cause of the fires, the deaths and the injuries that resulted from those fires produced no concrete findings. Pleadings of the representatives 236. In the case of Article 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, the representatives alleged that: a) the State violated that article of the Convention, read in combination with Article 19 thereof and the corresponding Articles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, by maintaining a juvenile justice system that violated the guarantees of due process; b) special measures of protection were needed during the juveniles’ cases and the State’s discretionary authority should have been restricted; c) the judicial protection required under Article 25 of the Convention applies not just to differences between adults, but also when settling disputes involving children and adolescents, and to proceedings or procedures for determining their rights or situations; d) no prompt and effective remedy was available to defend the rights of minors; e) the State never complied with the court ruling that granted a writ of generic habeas corpus (which took five years to get through the judicial system) and ordered that all the alleged victims be taken to a proper detention facility. The situation was particularly serious, since the lives and physical integrity of the juveniles on whose behalf the writ was granted were at stake; f) the remedies attempted to ascertain the authorities’ blame for the human rights violations at the Center were ineffective;