39 202. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías was extrajudicially executed by the Aragua State Security and Public Order Corps. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the State of Venezuela failed to fulfill its obligation to respect the right to life established in Article 4 of the Convention Americana in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías. 203. Moreover, taking into account the circumstances of the facts, that the death occurred as a result of a second shot while the victim was already wounded and begging not to be killed, the Commission considers it reasonable to infer that at that point the young man experienced profound feelings of fear that in themselves constitute a violation of the obligation to respect the right to humane treatment established in Article 5 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument. In addition, taking into account what is pointed out infra in the analysis of the right to a fair trial and judicial protection, the State failed in its duty to guarantee such rights by not conducting a serious and diligent investigation to clarify what had happened to the victim, to adequately determine the legality of the lethal use of force and, if appropriate, to impose the corresponding punishment. C. 250 The right to personal liberty and the duty to provide special protection for 251 children with respect to the events surrounding the arrest and transfer of Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías 204. The Inter-American Court has stated that “Article 7 of the Convention contains two distinct types of regulations: one general, the other specific. The general one is contained in the first subparagraph: “[e]very person has the right to personal liberty and security;” while the specific one is composed of a series of guarantees that protect the right not to be deprived of liberty unlawfully (Art. 7(2)) or in an arbitrary manner (Art. 7(3)), to be informed of the reasons for the detention and the charges brought against him (Art. 7(4)), to judicial control of the deprivation of liberty and the reasonable length of time of the remand in custody (Art. 7(5)), to contest the lawfulness of the arrest (Art. 7(6)), and not to be 252 detained for debt (Art. 7(7)).” 205. In addition, it has stated that any violation of subparagraphs 2 to 7 of Article 7 of the Convention shall necessarily entail the violation of Article 7.1 thereof, because the failure to respect the 253 guarantees of the person deprived of liberty leads to a failure to protect that person’s right to liberty. 206. In cases involving children, the Court has said that the content of the right to personal liberty cannot be separated from the best interests of the child and the State’s role as guarantor with 254 respect to children and that this requires the adoption of special measures for their protection in view of 255 their vulnerable condition. 250 Articles 7.1 – 7.5 of the American Convention establish: 1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. 2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the Constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto. 3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. 4. Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him. 5. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitied to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial. 251 Article 19 of the American Convention states: Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the State. 252 I/A Court HR. Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador Case. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C, No. 170. para. 51. 253 I/A Court HR. Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador Case. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C, No. 170. para. 54. 225. 254 I/A Court HR., Bulacio Case. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C, No. 100. para. 135. 255 I/A Court HR., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute.” Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C, No. 112. para.