50 207. Furthermore, it alleged that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies had not been complied with since “the constitutional procedure of amparo remained, should the interested parties consider it in order” and “[n]o lawsuit has been initiated under civil law […]”. 208. In its final arguments, the Commission replied to the State that “under international law, judicial decisions may not be excluded” from the sphere of international responsibility. 209. With regard to Articles 25 and 8, the Commission stated that the four youths who were abducted were not allowed to exercise their right to seek prompt and effective judicial protection by filing a petition for habeas corpus and, as they were in the hands of State agents, it was the State that was obliged to create the conditions necessary to ensure that this remedy could produce effective results. Furthermore, the judicial remedies used in this case proved to be illusory for the purpose of providing the victims’ families with an effective judicial protection of their rights. In this respect, the Commission called attention to the fact that, during the 1990s, witnesses or parties to proceedings related to human rights cases – in particular, those involving State agents – frequently became the object of violations themselves. 210. Regarding the performance of the Third Criminal Sentencing Court, the Commission recalled the opinion of the expert witness, Alberto Bovino, according to which the court acted arbitrarily when interpreting and applying with partiality the relevant articles of the Criminal Procedural Code, specifically, when it rejected all the evidence submitted to it which indicated that the defendants were guilty. To justify this affirmation, the Commission quoted Articles 654 and 655 of the Code. 211. The Commission then examined the judicial proceeding as an organic whole and concluded that it was conducted in a way that did not satisfy the standards established in domestic legislation and, thus, was arbitrary. In this respect, the Commission indicated that in order to consider if a proceeding has been conducted fairly, various elements must be analyzed, such as the way in which evidence was offered and produced, the opportunity that the victim has to take part in the proceeding, and the failure of the judge to justify his decisions when he makes pronouncements on evidence. 212. The Commission also recalled that, for a time, the State had maintained that the authorities were investigating to discover the “real” perpetrators; however, in reality, no other person has been prosecuted in relation to this case. It also indicated that, in the instant case, the victims have not been able to have access to civil compensation; moreover, both the right to a proceeding to identify and punish those responsible for the human rights violations and the right to civil proceedings for reparations have been frustrated. 213. Regarding Article 1.1, in its final arguments, the Commission stressed that Guatemala was responsible for the acts committed by State agents when they arbitrarily and unlawfully deprived the five victims of their right to life and, four of them of the right to liberty and humane treatment also. According to the Commission, the State was also responsible for failing to take adequate measures of protection, particularly for the three minors involved in the case.