in their turn, are victims of violation of the right to humane treatment. The adverse effects to the relatives in this case are especially serious since, based on the proven facts, several individuals, including children, not only witnessed how their relatives were extrajudicially executed, which in itself constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, but were themselves victims of violations of the right to humane treatment, which is compounded by the fact that all those violations have gone utterly unpunished, causing them additional and continuous suffering and anguish. 75. In relation to the breaches of the obligation to protect the family from acts of this type, the IACHR has stated specifically in relation to Guatemala that: [It] has given close attention to the plight of the population uprooted by the conflict since the early 1980’s. […] It was at that time that the “scorched earth” strategy of massacres and the eradication of whole villages implemented by the Lucas García regime and continued by the Efraín Rios Montt regime led to massive flows of displaced persons. The separation of families, communities and cultural groups tore the social fabric of the country. 179 76. Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that in this case the persecution, extreme violence, profound defenselessness, and the intent to destroy familial and social foundations that motivated the violence in the above-described context, as well as the multiple instances of abrupt separation of children from their families, either because they were executed or because, despite managing to survive, they were separated while fleeing—some for short periods, others for 20 years, while still others were never reunited—show that there was an autonomous violation of the rights of the family. 77. Furthermore, it is important to highlight that children require special protection from any form of physical or mental violence or injury, particularly during armed conflicts. 180 Bearing in mind the myriad suffering experienced by the children who survived the massacre of Los Josefinos, who not only were themselves victims of the violence, but in many cases also witnessed the murder and torment suffered by their parents and siblings as well as the destruction of their homes; spent the night next to the bodies of their parents and siblings; were separated from their families; had to flee alone or while taking on the care of other children; hid in the bush in order not to be murdered; and suffered other innumerable anxieties and privations, the Commission finds that there was a gross violation of the obligation to protect children on the part of the State of Guatemala. Indeed, not only were state agents directly responsible for the torment experienced by the children of Los Josefinos, but also the authorities breached their duty to provide children with special protection, both during and after the massacre, given that the State failed to adopt any special measure to protect them, ensure their protection and care, assist them, or promote their physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration Such violations are especially serious because they were committed against a group that requires special protection, as mentioned, and because they were part of a systematic practice of violation of children's rights that was a particular feature of the armed conflict in Guatemala.181 78. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the State violated the right to humane treatment, the rights of the family, and the rights of the child enshrined in Articles 5 (1), 5 (2), 17, and 19 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations set forth in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the survivors and relatives of the victims of the massacre in this case, who are individually identified in the Consolidated Annex on victims to this report on merits. IACHR, Fifth Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Guatemala, April 6, 2001, Chapter XIV, par. 2. In this regard, it is important to highlight Articles 19.1, 38.1 and 4, and 39 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which provide: “Article 19. 1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, ...”; “Article 38. 1. States Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for rules of international humanitarian law applicable to them in armed conflicts which are relevant to the child. […] 4. In accordance with their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect the civilian population in armed conflicts, States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure protection and care of children who are affected by an armed conflict.” “Article 39. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of: any form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or armed conflicts. Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child.” 181 I/A Court H.R., Las Dos Erres Massacre Judgment, par. 177; I/A Court H.R., Río Negro Massacres Judgment, par. 60. 179 180 21