25. With respect to the ordinary civil lawsuit to claim damages, which was not attempted by Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval or by her relatives, as the presumed victims in this case, the Court reiterates that, on account of the possible liabilities associated with the alleged facts, namely, the lack of adequate health care and the death of a person while in the State’s custody, it was up to the State to elucidate, ex officio, the circumstances in which these facts occurred, and should not depend on the efforts of private interests. Consequently, it could not require a party to exhaust legal actions in the civil courts as indicated by the State, the purpose of which was, according to the latter, to determine damages and, if applicable, set the corresponding compensation.24 In other cases, the Court has considered that, “if national mechanisms exist to determine forms of reparation [that satisfy] the criteria of objectivity, reasonableness and effectiveness to make adequate reparation for declared violations of rights recognized in the Convention,” such proceedings and their results “can be assessed.”25 Thus, certain proceedings activated by victims at the domestic level may be relevant to qualify and define certain aspects or implications of the State’s responsibility, as well as to settle certain claims in the context of integral reparation. Accordingly, the decisions taken at the domestic level have been taken into account when assessing the requests for reparation in a case before the Inter-American System.26 However, such proceedings have been relevant and have been used effectively by individuals harmed by violations of their rights, or by their next of kin. Thus, an assessment must be made having regard to the circumstances of each specific case, according to the nature of the right allegedly violated and the claims of the individual who has instituted the proceedings. Consequently, this analysis may correspond to the merits of the matter or, if appropriate, to the reparations stage. 27 Therefore, in this case it is not pertinent to assess in abstracto the appropriateness and effectiveness of an ordinary civil lawsuit to establish the State’s responsibility for the facts of this case or to seek reparation for the consequences thereof, since it was not necessary for the presumed victim or her relatives to exhaust them. In the case Salman v. Turkey (No. 21986/93, Judgment of June 27, 2000), the European Court of Human Rights heard a case in which the State filed a preliminary objection arguing the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, for not filing administrative and civil actions for damages, following the suspicious death of a man in the State’s custody. In this case the Court decided that, based on the autopsy, the person would have died naturally as a result of heart disease, but the relatives argued that the outcome had been provoked by the torture to which he had been subjected during his detention. The European Court considered the following: 24 83. […]the Court recalls that a Contracting State's obligation under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention to conduct an investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible in cases of fatal assault might be rendered illusory if, in respect of complaints under those Articles, an applicant were to be required to exhaust an administrative-law action leading only to an award of damages (See the Judgment Yaşa v. Turkey of September 2, 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2431, § 74). Consequently, the applicant was not required to bring the administrative proceedings in question and the preliminary objection is in this respect unfounded. (Translation of the Secretariat) Cf. Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213 para. 246; and Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2015. Series C No. 306, para. 186. 25 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134; and Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para.186. See also: Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 251; Case of the Tango Massacres v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, paras. 91 and 340; Case of La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, paras. 265 and 266; Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra, para. 246; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010, Series C No. 219, para. 303; Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, paras. 38 and 334 to 338; Case of the Afro-descendant Communities Displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270, paras. 469 to 476; and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (The Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, paras. 548 and 549. 26 Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 37 and 38; and Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 186. 27 12