or their relatives or their offer of proof.356 Finally, the State has the obligation to provide an immediate, satisfactory and convincing explanation of what happened to a person who was under State custody.357 258. In the instant case, the Court notes that there were no indications of violence in the death of the victim (nor was it alleged); however, this does not affect the State’s duty to investigate ex officio, given that she was deprived of her liberty. In this case, reasonable steps were taken to investigate the matter358which, in addition to ruling out the presence of various substances in her body, indicated “pulmonary edema” and “hemorrhagic pancreatitis” as the biological causes of death. Based on this, the Prosecutor’s Office concluded that she died of “natural causes” and that no crime had been committed, and asked the Court of First Instance on Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes to dismiss the case and archive the complaint, a decision accepted by the latter. 259. The Court notes that the investigative efforts carried out were effective in establishing the biological cause of death and, based on those results, the Public Prosecution Service concluded that this event was not the result of any act considered punishable under Guatemalan law. In this regard, it has not been established that the State bears responsibility for the manner in which these inquiries were conducted, or for the decision not to initiate criminal proceedings against a specific person. Moreover, given that the State must provide, ex officio, a sufficient and effective explanation to establish the circumstances surrounding the non-violent death of a person in prison, the failure to determine criminal responsibility should not necessarily prevent the continuation of the investigation into other types of responsibilities, such as administrative responsibilities, 359 if appropriate, according to the circumstances of each case. However, the Court points out that the Commission and the representatives have not provided sufficient information or arguments to determine the appropriate channels (or, in this case, the absence of such channels) that should have been used to investigate other possible actions by public officials, doctors or third parties and to establish if these could have been related to Mrs. Chinchilla’s death, regardless of the criminal, disciplinary or other implications that these could have. 260. For the foregoing reasons, the Court considers that it has not been demonstrated that the State is responsible for the alleged failure to guarantee access to justice, in the terms Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, supra, para. 131 and 161. 356 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 111, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 88. See also, mutatis mutandi, Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador, supra, paras. 151 and 152. It is worth mentioning the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on this matter, which has held that, under Article 3 of the European Convention, which recognizes the right to personal integrity, the State has the obligation to give a “convincing explanation” of any injury sustained by someone deprived of their liberty. Likewise, based on Article 3 of the European Convention in relation to Article 1 thereof, the ECHR has held that an effective official investigation is required when an individual makes a “credible assertion” that any of his rights stipulated in Article 3 have been infringed by an agent of the State. The investigation should be capable of identifying and punishing those responsible, because otherwise the general prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, inter alia, would be “ineffective in practice”, since it would be possible for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those in their custody with total impunity. Cf. ECHR. Elci et al. v. Turkey, No. 23141 and 25091/94, Judgment of November 13, 2003, paras. 648 and 649, and Assenov et al. v. Bulgaria, No. 24760/94, Judgment of October 28, 1999, para. 102. 357 Namely, official removal of the body; autopsy on Mrs. Chinchilla’s body by the Judiciary’s Forensic Medicine Service of the Department of Guatemala; analysis of samples of blood, liver and gastric contents taken from the corpse to rule out the presence of ethyl alcohol, methyl alcohol, isopropanol, acetone, other drugs or pesticides by the Technical Scientific Department (toxicology section) of the Directorate of Criminal Investigations of the Public Prosecution Service. 358 359 Cf. Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 224. 83