ICU persisted throughout the day on February 6, 2001, and Mr. Poblete Vilches died in the early morning hours of February 7, 2001. 133. According to these facts, the Commission observes that even though, considering Mr. Poblete Vilches’s diagnosis he needed intensive care in the ICU, due to the lack of beds for more than 24 hours he received “intermediate” treatment. This decision, as indicated in the section on informed consent, occurred without the family members effectively understanding the situation and without exploring other alternatives, such as, for example, transferring Mr. Poblete Vilches to another medical center to receive the intensive treatment he needed. 134. In a similar case, the European Court recently established that for the determination on whether the State breached the material aspecto of the right to life, it corresponds to evaluate if the authorities did everything that could be reasonably expected from them and, in particular, if they satisfied the obligation to protect the patient 125. In the same case, it established that in order to declare the substantive violation of the right to life, it does not have to speculate on the possibilities of survival of the victim, but it is sufficient to establish the existence of a deficiency in the public service of the hospital126. 135. In the same line, the Commission considers that for purposes of determining the international responsibility of the State for failing to uphold one of the principles associated with the right to health and tied by its interconnectedness to the rights to life and integrity, it is not necessary to establish the cause of death by clear and convincing evidence. It is sufficient to determine that even though the treatment indicated was the intensive one with the infrastructure of the ICU, it wasn’t possible to provide it due to the shortcoming at the public hospital that consisted of the lack of beds in that unit, without any corrective or alternative measure being adopted so that Mr. Poblete Vilches could receive care in keeping with his health needs. As a result, the Commission considers that there were measures that the State, through the public Hospital Sótero del Río, could have adopted and did not adopt in order to provide Mr. Poblete Vilches the treatment he needed in view of his condition. 136. Moreover, the Commission considers that all the circumstances analyzed caused in Mr. Poblete Vilches physical and mental suffering at the moment of being discharged in conditions of gravity, in the context of his stay at home with a rapid deterioration and in absence of information on the part of his relatives on how to take care of him, and during his stay at the Hospital after his second entry until the moment of his death. 2.3 Conclusion 137. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Commission considers that both the decision to discharge Mr. Poblete Vilches from the public hospital and the failure to provide the intensive treatment he required in his second admission to the same hospital allow one to conclude that the State is responsible for violating the rights to life, humane treatment, and health established at Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Vinicio Antonio Poblete Vilches. 3. The right to humane treatment for the alleged mistreatment received by Mr. Poblete Vilches and his family members (Article 5 of the American Convention) 125 ECHR. Case Lópes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal. December 15, 2015. Para. 110. 126 ECHR. Case Lópes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal. December 15, 2015. Para. 114. 27