59 282. Given the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the State did not 193 provide Ricardo David Videla Fernandez’ next of kin with an effective recourse to have the events clarified and those responsible identified, all in violation of rights recognized in articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. F. The right to humane treatment and the child’s right to special protection (articles 5(1), 5(2) and 19 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof) as they pertain to Lucas Matías Mendoza’s loss of sight. 283. In the preceding section, the Commission underscored the State’s obligations under articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention vis-à-vis persons in its custody. Specifically, the Commission addressed the State’s obligation to provide proper medical attention and treatment when a detainee so requires. In the case of Lucas Matías Mendoza, the Commission observes that he was hit in the eye in 1997 and sustained a detached retina when he was still a child and while being held in detention in a facility for juveniles under the age of 18. 284. The Inter-American Court has held that “when the person the State deprives of his or her liberty is a child, (…) it has the same obligations it has with regard to any person, yet compounded by the added obligation established in Article 19 of the American Convention. On the one hand, it must be all the more diligent and responsible in its role as guarantor and must take special measures based on the principle of the best interests of the 194 child.” 285. The Commission does not have sufficient information indicating that the State was to blame for the blow that Lucas Matías Mendoza sustained in 1997. However, from the information available it appears that in that very same year the victim was diagnosed as having a detached retina in the left eye. The record also shows that Lucas Matías Mendoza suffered from a congenital problem that caused toxoplasmosis in his right eye. According to the information brought to the Commission’s attention, it was not until 2005 that a medical examination was done at the request of the victim’s defense counsel. The medical examination revealed that he had lost his bilateral vision. 286. In earlier sections, the Commission pointed out that as guarantor of persons deprived of liberty, it is up to the State to give a convincing and satisfactory explanation of what happened to persons in its custody. The Argentine State provided no information at all regarding the medical attention that Lucas Matías Mendoza received between 1997, when he was diagnosed as having a detached retina and toxoplasmosis, and 2005, when the medical examinations concluded that he had already lost his bilateral vision. Because the State failed to shoulder its burden of proof in this regard, the Commission deems that Argentina did not provide a convincing and satisfactory explanation of the victim’s vision loss, nor did the State authorities act with the special due diligence that Lucas Matías Mendoza’s need for medical attention required. 287. The Commission therefore concludes that the Argentine State violated, to the detriment of Lucas Matías Mendoza, the right to humane treatment recognized in articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations undertaken in Article 1(1) thereof. G. Rights to humane treatment, judicial guarantees and judicial protection (articles 5(1), 5(2), 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof) and the obligation to prevent and punish torture (articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture) as they pertain to the treatment of Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza 193 The names of the next of kin who, according to the petitioners, were adversely affected by what happened to Ricardo David Videla Fernández, appear at paragraph 13(l) of this report. 194 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute.” Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 160; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paragraphs 124, 163164; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, paragraphs 126 and 134.