48 249. In the instant case, the Commission will analyze first the actions of the State from the very moment of arrest, then the failure to provide a satisfactory explanation of the violent death in State custody and, finally, a ruling will be issued on the assignment of responsibility. 250. First, the Commission recalls that the arrest of Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías was unlawful and arbitrary, under the terms already described in this report. In particular, it is not clear, in any official document, what purpose was served by arresting a child without a judicial order and in the absence of an in flagrante situation. In summary, the purpose of the arrest of Eduardo José Landaeta is not clear. Once he was arrested under these circumstances, the violations continued. The CSOP officers who arrested Eduardo José did not immediately inform his parents of his arrest or the reasons for it, so that they could file a writ of habeas corpus or the equivalent to challenge the arrest of their son. Once arrested, Eduardo José Landaeta was not brought before a competent judicial authority for judicial control of his arrest. Eduardo José remained confined in police stations and the measures needed to take him to a location appropriate to his condition as a minor child were not adopted. Precisely due to the failure to comply with these minimum guarantees, at no time was it possible to shed light on the purpose of the arrest or the transfers ordered. 251. Nor were any measures adopted, once the child’s parents appeared and presented information regarding the threats he had received and the extrajudicial execution of his brother one a half months earlier, to protect Eduardo José Landaeta from the risk he ran in the custody of the CSOP. The omissions noted were not addressed at this point either. 252. The State of Venezuela has not conducted a serious, timely, and exhaustive investigation of the death of Eduardo José, even though there was evidence that he had been extrajudicially executed by police officers. In this respect, and as will be analyzed in detail in the section on Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the case is still being tried 15 years after the death of Eduardo José, those responsible have not been punished, and no relevant evidence has been produced to shed light on the facts. 253. The Court has stated that States are responsible, in their role as guarantor of the rights enshrined in the Convention, for ensuring the observance of those rights with respect to any individual in 281 State custody. When anyone, particularly a child, dies violently in its custody, the State has the burden of demonstrating that the death cannot be attributed to it. The Court has stated that it falls to the State to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of what happened to those in its custody and to dispute 282 allegations regarding its responsibility by means of appropriate evidence. 254. Based on what has been stated to this point, the Commission concludes that State authorities arrested Eduardo José Landaeta, although it is not clear what purpose was served by the police arrest in the absence of an in flagrante situation and without a court order. In addition, once he was in State custody, no measures were taken to protect the life of Eduardo José in his particularly vulnerable situation based both on his youth and the threats he had received. Added to this are numerous circumstantial factors pointing to the execution of Eduardo José Landaeta such as the fact that Ignacio Landaeta Muñoz reported that a female CSOP officer, as well as a sergeant in the same police station, told him that his son was at risk and that some officers wanted to kill him. In addition, according to his statement, when he was already under arrest, Eduardo José himself signaled to his father begging him not to leave him alone. This happened precisely one a half months after the extrajudicial execution of his brother Igmar Alexander, and after numerous threats and harassment by CSOP officers against both brothers through the intermediary of their mother. These threats included a death threat. The Venezuelan State did not conduct a serious and diligent investigation to provide a satisfactory answer regarding the death of a child in its custody and to punish those responsible. Nor was there a serious investigation of the evidence mentioned or of the relationship of these events with the earlier threats and with the death of his brother. In summary, there are multiple factors that taken as a group point to a direct attribution of 281 I/A Court HR., López Álvarez Case. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C, No. 141. paras. 104 – 106. 282 I/A Court HR., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C, No. 99. para. 111.