102 . with all the terms of this judgment. The case will be closed when the State has fully complied with that stated in the present judgment. Within one year as of notification of this judgment, the State shall provide the Court with a report on the measures adopted to comply with it. XI OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 416. Therefore, THE COURT DECIDES: Unanimously, 1. To dismiss the first preliminary objection filed by the State, in the terms of paragraphs 30 to 32 of the present Judgment. By six votes against one, 2. To dismiss the second preliminary objection filed by the State, in the terms of paragraphs 37 through 40 of the present judgments. The Judge ad hoc Pasceri Scaramuzza disagrees. DECLARES: By six votes against one, that: 3. The State is responsible for failing to comply with its obligation included in Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights to guarantee the exercise of the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and the right to humane treatment, acknowledged in Articles 13(1) and 5(1) of the same treaty, in detriment of Antonio José Monroy, Armando Amaya, Carlos Colmenares, David José Pérez Hansen, Erika Paz, Isabel Cristina Mavarez, Isnardo José Bravo, Javier García Flores, Luisiana Ríos Paiva, and Pedro Antonio Nikken García, in the terms and for the reasons presented in paragraphs 112 through 334 of the present Judgment. Likewise, the State is responsible for failing to comply with its obligation include in Article 1(1) of the Convention to guarantee the exercise of the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and the right to humane treatment, acknowledged in Articles 13(1) of the American Convention, in detriment of Anahís del Carmen Cruz Finol, Argenis Uribe, Herbigio Antonio Henríquez Guevara, Laura Cecilia Castellanos Amarista, Luis Augusto Contreras Alvarado, Noé Pernía, Samuel Sotomayor, Wilmer Marcano, and Winston Francisco Gutiérrez Bastardo, in the terms and for the reasons presented in paragraphs 112 through 334 of the present Judgment. 4. It has not been established that the State violated the right to equal protection, acknowledged in Article 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights, for the reasons stated in paragraphs 342 through 351 of the present Judgment. 5. It has not been established that the State violated the right to seek, receive, and impart information, in the terms of Article 13(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights, for the reasons stated in paragraphs 335 through 394 of the present Judgment.