-107increased by not knowing the truth about the facts, which has the effect of ensuring partial impunity. 162. Hence, the Court considers that the immediate next of kin, who are individualized in this proceeding, must be considered victims of the violation of the right to humane treatment embodied in Article 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. * * * 163. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 19 of the Convention (supra paras. 98 and 101), the Court finds that this has been considered within the failure to observe the obligations of prevention, protection and investigation that have been declared grounds for the violation of Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2), 7(1) and 7(2) (supra paras. 118 and 153). IX ARTICLES 8(1) AND 25 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) THEREOF (RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION) 164. Arguments of the Commission (a) The judicial actions taken by the State to clarify the responsibility of civilians and members of the military forces in the forced disappearance and extrajudicial execution of the alleged victims do not satisfy the requirements established in the American Convention regarding the guarantees of due process and judicial protection; (b) Even though, on May 26, 1997, seven years after the facts, 10 individuals were convicted in first instance, the participation of around 60 persons can be inferred from the case file. Only three of the 10 persons convicted are serving their prison sentences; and most of the arrest warrants issued against those convicted in abstentia have not been executed. The failure to charge several of the participants in the facts, added to the failure to execute the capture of most of the persons convicted in abstentia, illustrates the delay in the administration of justice; (c) Since the decision of the Tribunal Nacional of December 30, 1997, the investigation of the co-participants not included in the original indictment remains open, 14 years after the facts occurred. A criminal investigation should be carried out promptly, to protect the interests of the alleged victims, preserve the evidence and even safeguard the rights of all those who, in the context of the investigation, are considered to be suspects; (d) The assignment of part of the investigation to the military criminal justice system violates the rights to judicial protection and the guarantees of due process. In the instant case, it was confirmed that the military justice system intervened in the trial of a member of the Army who was allegedly involved in the facts. The military criminal jurisdiction does not meet the standards of independence and impartiality required by Article 8(1) of the Convention, as a