119 4. The State violated, to the detriment of Wilson García-Asto, the Right to a Fair Trial as enshrined in Article 8(1) and 8(2)(c) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, during the second proceedings instituted against him, in accordance with paragraph 155 of this Judgment. Unanimously, that: 5. The State violated, to the detriment of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, the Right to a Fair Trial as enshrined in Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, during the second proceedings brought against him, in accordance with paragraphs 163 to 172 of this Judgment. Unanimously, that: 6. The State violated, to the detriment of Wilson García-Asto and Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, Article 9 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, during the first proceedings instituted against them, in accordance with paragraphs 197 to 202 and 205 to 208 of this Judgment. By six votes to one, that: 7. The violation of Article 9 of the Convention has not been proven, in accordance with paragraphs 179 to 195 of this Judgment. Dissenting Judge Medina-Quiroga. Unanimously, that: 8. The State violated, to the detriment of Wilson García-Asto and Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, the Right to Humane Treatment as enshrined in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, in accordance with paragraphs 220 to 229, 232, and 233 of this Judgment. Unanimously, that: 9. The State violated, to the detriment of Napoleón García-Tuesta, Celia AstoUrbano, Elisa García-Asto, Gustavo García, María Alejandra Rojas, Marcos RamírezÁlvarez and Santa, Pedro, Filomena, Julio, Obdulia, Marcelino, and Adela RamírezRojas, the rights enshrined in Article 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, in accordance with paragraphs 230, 231, 234, and 235 of this Judgment. Unanimously, that: 10. This judgment is, in and of itself, a form of redress, under the terms of paragraph 268 hereof. AND RULES,