47 244. In addition to the general considerations regarding the right to life indicated supra, the Court has said that with respect to the right to life of children deprived of liberty, States have a special role to play as guarantor, in that prison authorities exercise heavy control or command over the persons in 278 their custody. 245. Particularly important for the instant case, the Inter-American Court has emphasized that “when the person the State deprives of his or her liberty is a child (…) it has the same obligations it has regarding any person, yet compounded by the added obligation established in Article 19 of the American Convention. On the one hand, it must be all the more diligent and responsible in its role as guarantor, 279 and must take special measures based on the principle of the best interest of the child. On the other hand, to protect a child’s life, the State must be particularly attentive to that child’s living conditions while deprived of his or her liberty, as the child’s detention or imprisonment does not deny the child his or her 280 right to life or restrict that right.” 246. In the instant case, the Commission has recognized as proven: i) that Eduardo José Landaeta was arrested on December 29, 1996 by CSOP police officers and his parents were not immediately informed of his arrest and the reasons for it, and he was not brought before any competent authority to exercise the corresponding judicial control regarding the deprivation of liberty; ii) that he remained at a local police station on December 29, 1996; iii) that we was taken to the Central Command of the Aragua State Police on December 30, 1996; iv) that on December 31, 1996 Eduardo José should have been transferred to the CTPJ headquarters, which proved impossible since on the morning of that same day he lost his life due to 15 firearms shots; v) that his parents, once they learned of his arrest, showed up outside various sites of detention where Eduardo José was being held, in order to inform them they were dealing with a 17-year-old adolescent who was in danger; vii) that a female officer at the Central Command of the Aragua State Police, as well as a police captain there, told Eduardo José’s father that there were some police officers who wanted to kill him; and viii) no specialized entity or authority was notified to ensure the rights of the detained child. 247. The police version was that the squad car in which the victim was transferred from the Central Command of the Aragua State Police to the CTPJ was intercepted by a group of unknown, hooded subjects who proceeded to seize the officers’ weapons and shoot Eduardo José Landaeta, allegedly also leaving officer Freddy Blanco, one of the three police officers tasked with the transfer, wounded. 248. For their part, from the start of the domestic proceeding the victim’s parents insisted on the inconsistences in the official version and the technical evidence and that Eduardo José had been extrajudicially executed by CSOP officers, who had threatened him earlier, had conducted illegal searches of his home, and had murdered his brother Igmar Alexander one month earlier, allegedly in the context of a “confrontation.” In this respect, they emphasized that the case of Eduardo José is part of the context of extrajudicial executions that have been occurring in Venezuela for more than a decade, with a pattern of similar characteristics. 278 I/A Court HR., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute.” Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C, No. 112. para. 152; I/A Court HR., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C, No. 110. para. 98; I/A Court HR., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C, No. 99. para. 111; and I/A Court HR., Bulacio Case. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C, No. 100. para. 138. 279 I/A Court HR., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute.” Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C, No. 112. para. 160; I/A Court HR., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C, No. 110. paras. 124, 163-164; and I/A Court HR., Bulacio Case. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C, No. 100. paras. 126 and 134. 280 160. I/A Court HR., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute.” Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C, No. 112. para.