Hernan Pardo Roche and Dr. Luis Carvajal Freire for the hospital. The hospital handed over a copy of the medical audit.97 90. The Commission has no further information on those proceedings. 91. Finally, the information available indicates that as of January 11, 2010, at the least, no administrative proceedings had been launched at the Sótero del Río Hospital in connection with Mr. Vinicio Poblete Vilches’s death. 98 D. Legal analysis 92. Taking into account the parties’ positions, as well as the facts that have been established, the Commission will analyze the instant case in the following order: (1) The right to informed consent in relation to health (Article 13 in relation to articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention); (2) The right to life, humane treatment, and health with respect to the care received by Mr. Poblete Vilches (Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention); (3) The right to humane treatment in light of the alleged mistreatment received by Mr. Poblete Vilches and his next-of-kin (Article 5 of the American Convention); and (4) The rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection (Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention). 1. The right to informed consent in relation to health (Article 13 in relation to Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention) 93. As a preliminary matter, the Commission notes that in its admissibility report it did not expressly include Article 13 of the American Convention among the rights that could be considered in the merits phase. Nonetheless, of all the arguments and evidence available in the merits phase, the IACHR considers it relevant to analyze the component of the facts related to the alleged lack of informed consent, in light of Article 13 of the American Convention in relation to the right to health, which is incorporated, in turn based on its interconnectedness, in Articles 4 and 5 of the same instrument. 94. The Commission notes that throughout the admissibility and merits stages the State had knowledge of the facts on which the alleged lack of informed consent was based. Considering this, and applying the principle of iura novit curia, the Commission will analyze whether in the instant case the State violated Article 13 of the American Convention 99. 97 Annex 79. Mediation Unit of the State Defense Council, Minutes of First Mediation Hearing, April 27, 2006 (annex to the petitioners’ submission of August 28, 2014). 98 Annex 80. Document No. 005-10 of the Committee on Human Rights, Nationality, and Citizenship of the Chamber of Deputies, dated January 11, 2010 (annex to the petitioners’ submission of January 25, 2010); Annex 81. Order C. No. 4181 of the Ministry of Health, dated December 15, 2009 (annex to the petitioners’ submission of January 25, 2010); Annex 82. Order C. No. 3630 of the Ministry of Health, dated October 30, 2009 (annex to the petitioners’ submission of January 25, 2010); and Order of the Director of the South East Metropolitan Health Service, received on November 21, 2009 (annex to the petitioners’ submission of January 25, 2010). 99 The Inter-American Court has established that inclusion by the IACHR of new articles of the American Convention in the merits phase whose possible violation is to be examined “does not imply a violation of the [State’s] right to defense” in cases in which the state has had knowledge of the facts that are the basis of its alleged violation.” See: I/A Court HR, Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 50. 17