with the obligations of the American Convention, and even more so if fundamental legal rights are in play, such as life.111 Therefore, the Court considers that in this case the State failed to comply with its general obligation to investigate ex officio the death of Mr. Pedro Miguel Vera Vera. The Court considers that this obligation is even more relevant in this case because his death occurred while Mr. Vera Vera was in State custody. The aforementioned has led to impunity of the facts in this case, which has been defined by the Court as the failure to carry out all of the following: investigate, arrest, prosecute, and convict those responsible for violations of rights protected by the American Convention. 112 98. Given that Mr. Vera Vera remained alive ten days after his arrest until his death, during which he was under the custody of the State, the Court considers that the right of access to justice was his right, given that the State had an obligation to investigate the facts. After his death, this right was of his mother, Ms. Francisca Mercedes Vera Valdez. 99. In consideration of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State violated Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Pedro Miguel Vera Vera and Francisca Mercedes Valdez Vera for the failure to investigate, prosecute and, where appropriate, punish those responsible for the death of Mr. Vera Vera while in State custody. IX RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT [PERSONAL INTEGRITY] IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO GUARANTEE RIGHTS OF MS. FRANCISCA MERCEDES VERA VALDEZ 100. This Court has jurisdiction –based upon the American Convention and grounded in the iura novit curia principle, which is solidly supported in international jurisprudence- to examine the possible violation of conventional provisions which have not been alleged in the briefs submitted thereto, in the understanding that the parties have had the opportunity to express their respective positions with regard to the relevant facts. 113 101. In the present case, neither the Commission nor the representatives alleged the violation to the right to humane treatment [personal integrity] enshrined in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Ms. 111 Cf. Case of Garibaldi V. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 130, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia, supra note 94, para. 173. 112 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala, supra note 7, para. 173; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas V. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 130, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia, supra note 94, para. 172. 113 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras, supra note 11, para. 163; Case of Usón Ramírez V. Venezuela, supra note 6, para. 53, and Case of Vélez Loor V. Panamá, supra note 3, para. 184. 40