The Government of the Republic of Guatemala regrets the events that occurred on the estate on October 5, 1995, and assumed institutional responsibility from the outset. The Government of the Republic expresses its solidarity with the victims of the events described and is resolved to provide redress to the families of the fatal victims and to the persons who were wounded. 116. The Commission finds that in the circumstances described and in the absence of arguments from the State to justify the use of force by its agents, force was clearly used in contravention of the principles of legitimate purpose, necessity, and proportionality described hereinabove. Therefore, the deaths caused constituted arbitrary deprivations of the right to life as recognized in Article 4(1) of the American Convention, while the injuries caused constituted violations of physical integrity under the terms of Article 5 of the American Convention. 117. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the State violated the right to life recognized in Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Abel Pérez Ramírez, Andrés Miguel Mateo, Carlos Fernando Chop Chi, Hilaria Morente de la Cruz, Juana Jacinto Felipe, Manuela Mateo Antonio, Pablo Coc Coc, Pedro Diego Andrés; Pedro Medina Sánchez, Maurilia Coc Max; and Santiago Pop Coc. As regards Carlos Fernando Chop Chip, Maurilia Coc Max, and Santiago Pop Coc, all of whom were children at the time of the events, the IACHR concludes that the State violated the right to life recognized in Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 19 of the same instrument. 118. Furthermore, the Commission concludes that the State violated the right to humane treatment recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of the persons wounded, to wit: Aurelio Hernández Morales, Carmen Caal Saquiq, Efraín Grave Morente, Eliseo Hernández Morales, Francisco Hernández, Jacinta Matón, Josefa Mendoza Aguilar, Juan Medina Toma, Juana Andrés Maldonado, Juana Felipe Velásquez, Marcos Jolomna Yat, Martín Quip Mocú, Mateo Pedro, Natividad Sales, Pascual José Pascual, Pedro Daniel Carrillo López, Ricardo Pop Caal, Rolando Hernández Maldonado, Rosenda Sales Ortiz, Santiago Cajbón Quip, Santos Choc Max Coc, Tomás Grave Morente, Víctor Carrillo, Micaela Pascual, José Hernández Maldonado and Germán Cajbon Choc. 119. Finally, as regards Santiago Maquin, Gerardo Maldonado Sales, and Rosendo Morales Ortiz, the Commission notes that those individuals were also wounded and later died. The IACHR considers that a state can violate the right to life of individuals who do not die immediately as a result of the violations committed by state agents, but afterwards owing to the injuries caused. The Commission notes that the petitioners argued that those persons died subsequently as a result of the injuries caused on October 5, 1995 The State, for its part, did not refute the causal link between the wounds sustained by those persons and their ensuing deaths. Consequently, the IACHR considers that Guatemala violated the rights to humane treatment and life recognized at Articles 5(1) and 4(1) of the American Convention, in connection with article 1(1) of said instrument, to the detriment of Santiago Maquin, Gerardo Maldonado Sales, and Rosendo Morales Ortiz. 3. Right to a fair trial and judicial protection (Articles 8(1), 186 and 25(1)187 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) thereof) 186 Article 8(1) of the American Convention: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 187 Article 25(1) of the American Convention: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 26