41.On January 18, 2005, the Seventh Criminal Court of First Instance on Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes of the Department of Guatemala, acting on the request made by the Public Ministry, dismissed the complaint and ordered the case closed. 9 42.As a result, based on the information and documents provided by the parties, on January 18, 2005, the aforementioned court dismissed the complaint and ordered the case closed. That decision was not challenged and there is no record of joint plaintiffs appearing in court during criminal proceedings. 43.The Commission observes that according to the information in the case file, the relatives of the alleged victim were not notified of the investigation initiated by theProsecutors Office or of the outcome of the same. 44.In the opinion of the IACHR, the lack of information and notification made it impossible for the relatives of Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval to file a petition to change the decision to close the case, to present their allegations and evidence of the deficient medical care provided to the alleged victim after she fell, as they have done in their petition lodged with the IACHR. 45.In addition, the Commission considers that, in the present case, the alleged facts refer to the alleged violation of fundamental rights such as the right to life and to personal integrity, violations that in the domestic legislation are categorized as crimes that can be prosecuted by a court on its own, and whose investigation and prosecution should be pursued by the State. 10 Based on the foregoing and the fact that Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval was in jail and under the custody of the Guatemalan State when she died, it should be, first, the responsibility of the State to clarify the circumstances of her death and not the efforts of private interests, or for the investigation to depend on the initiative of those private interests. 11 46.In conclusion, the IACHR considers that in this part of the complaint relating to the death of Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval, the exception to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46(2)(b) applies. That provision establishes that the aforementioned requirement will not apply when the alleged victim has not been allowed access to the domestic remedies, or has been prevented from exhausting them. 47.In this sense, it should be pointed out that compensation for loss and damages which, according to the State, the petitioners did not claim could not, in this case, be considered an efficient and sufficient remedy to investigate, clarify and, if warranted, prosecute the consequences of a death, allegedly, caused by the negligence and the failure on the part of government employees to provide adequate medical care to a person deprived of liberty. 48.Lastly, the Commission notes, the request for the application of the exceptions provided in Article 46 (2) of the Convention is closely linked to the determination of possible violations of certain rights enshrined in the Convention, such as the guarantee of access to justice. However, the Commission bears in mind that Article 46(2), by its nature and purpose, is a norm with autonomous content vis à vis the substantive norms of the Convention. Therefore, the determination of whether the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of 9 Ibidem. With regard to domestic legislation, it should be pointed out that Articles 310 and 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that: Dismissal. The Public Ministry shall petition the court of first instance to close a case, lawsuit or police investigation when it is evident that the fact is not punishable or when it is not possible to proceed. If the judge does not agree with the request to close the case, and the order is final, the head of the Public Ministry will then decide whether the investigation shall continue under the direction of the same official or if a substitute official must be designated. Effects. The decision that orders the closing of the case may not be modified as long as the known circumstances on which the decision is based do not change or the obstacle that prevents prosecution from moving forward persists, without detriment to the powers of opportunity this Code grants to the Public Ministry. In ordering a case closed, the judge will forward the record to the Public Ministry. 10 IACHR, Report No. 52/97, Case 11.218, Arges Sequeira Mangas, IACHR Annual Report 1997, paragraphs 96 and 97; Report No. 55/97, paragraph 392; Report No. 75/03, paragraph 27. 11 IACHR, Report No. 44/07, July 23, 2007, par. 65; Report No. 24/06, March 2, 2006, para. 37, and Report Nº 52/97, paragraph 96. 9