55 because the specific circumstances of the case and the discharge of such obligation to guarantee must be taken into account.176 261. The Court has also held that as guarantors of the rights recognized in the Convention, States are 177 responsible for observing the Convention-protected rights of all persons in their custody. As guarantor of the right to life, the State is required to prevent any situations that might lead, by action or omission, to a violation of that right. In effect, in its role as guarantor, the State does in fact have the responsibility to guarantee the rights of individuals in its 178 custody and to supply information and evidence pertaining to the detainee’s fate. Furthermore, the Court has written that because of its role as guarantor, the State has the obligation to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation 179 of what happened and to disprove accusations regarding its responsibility, through valid evidence. 2. Analysis of Ricardo David Videla Fernández’ situation prior to his death and the circumstances surrounding his death 262. It has been established that Ricardo David Videla Fernández’ mental health required medical treatment. At the time of his death, he had been prescribed medication for a psychiatric condition. The Commission has also established that the prison personnel in whose custody he was at the time of his death were aware of his mental health condition and of the deterioration of that condition in the days leading up to his death. Furthermore, the version of events given by the prison staff was corroborated by the other inmates, who also reported that Ricardo David Videla Fernández had announced his intention to take his life, and had said a number of times that one of the reasons he wanted to end his life was that he could no longer endure the prison conditions to which he was subjected. 263. Given the State’s obligations where humane treatment is concerned and its special condition as guarantor, it was the State’s responsibility to provide all means necessary to ensure that the victim’s detention conditions were ones befitting his human dignity and, most especially, to properly treat his mental health problems. 264. In the instant case, it has been established that the conditions that Ricardo David Videla Fernández endured were incompatible with his personal integrity. The only information the Commission has regarding his mental health condition is the fact that the victim was being provided with medication for a psychiatric condition. The Commission has no details about whether Ricardo David Videla Fernández was receiving any type of special therapy or was being constantly monitored for his mental health problem. 265. The Commission established that Ricardo David Videla Fernández filed a petition of habeas corpus in May 2005 describing his condition and expressly stating that he was being subjected to psychiatric mistreatment by his guards. Although it was said that a court authority visited the victim, there is no specific indication that any follow-up was done of his claims of mistreatment. Quite the contrary, as a result of the report issued by the Prison Policy Monitoring Commission of Argentina’s Secretariat of Human Rights, days before his death Ricardo David Videla Fernández had been placed in a punishment cell, where the Commission found him to be “in terrible shape.” 266. From the information reported in the preceding paragraphs one can infer that Ricardo David Videla Fernández did not receive proper medical attention for his mental health problems. The suggestion that he might have had some form of psychiatric treatment or medication for a psychiatric condition, without any indication of what the State was doing to provide him with adequate care and to 176 I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. “Cotton Field.” Judgment of November 16, 2009, para. 280; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 123. See also, ECHR, Case of Kiliç v. Turkey, Judgment of 28 March 2000, paragraphs 62 and 63, and ECHR, Case of Osman v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 28 October 1998, paragraphs 115 and 116. 177 I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, paragraphs 104–106. 178 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 30, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 138. See also, I/A Court H.R., Case of the Urso Branco Prison, Provisional Measures, Order of April 22, 2004, consideranda 6. 179 I/A Court H.R., Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 111.