228. With regard to the investigation conducted after Mrs. Chinchilla’s death, the Commission noted that there was no inquiry into the possible responsibility of State officials, including prison staff, doctors or the courts, for their alleged failure to fulfil their duty to guarantee Mrs. Chinchilla’s rights to life and integrity, for the omissions related to her prison conditions, the lack of adequate medical treatment and the factors that could have contributed to her death. On this point, the Commission emphasized that the responsibility of agents of the State for facts such as those of the instant case, can include investigations of different types. It added that in this case, the failure to conduct an official investigation also meant a failure to disclose the truth, with the result that, to date, there is still no judicial determination as to whether or not Mrs. Chinchilla’s death was caused by her illnesses or by the lack of adequate medical attention.327 This situation of uncertainty has been allowed linger unreasonably to this day. Although the State has suggested that there was a “lack of interest” in the matter on the part of the family, since they did not file a criminal complaint, the Commission argued that, because this matter concerned violations of the right to life or wellbeing of a person in State custody, it was not necessary to examine the steps that the victim’s relatives may or may not have taken with a view to investigating the facts, since that was an ex officio obligation of the State. 229. As to the actions of the enforcement courts in granting the alleged victim permission to leave the prison, the State argued that, as demonstrated in her numerous requests, these were solely aimed at obtaining judicial approval so that she could leave the COF to attend previously scheduled medical appointments at public hospitals, each of which was considered and decided by the Second Enforcement Judge in the exercise of this duties. The State stressed that most requests were granted in response to the alleged victim’s special health needs, but at the same time complying with the basic verification procedures required in cases of persons convicted for crimes of social significance; at no time could it have considered or granted other privileges to the presumed victim, different to those afforded for such requests, given her legal status as a person with a criminal conviction. 230. Regarding the actions of the enforcement judge in the incidental motions for early release, the State pointed out that the Commission’s arguments are merely a subjective view, since they depart completely from the manner and legality with which the judge decided each and every one of the motions filed. At no time were the judges’ decisions to dismiss said motions capricious; these actions should be seen as a whole, based on the merits of the records containing an extensive analysis of the case and clearly explaining their decision. Furthermore, the State argued that an alternative measure to incarceration was not warranted, much less house arrest, given the seriousness of the crime committed by Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval, with the aggravating factor that the body of the person that she killed was found in her home, and therefore it was not possible for her to remain without the State’s custody, endangering the lives of other citizens. 327 Specifically, the Commission noted that there is no record that the State investigated certain facts or conduct, for example: i) there was no detailed analysis of Mrs. Chinchilla’s health condition to link her death with the lack of adequate medical treatment for her diabetes; ii) there was no analysis as to whether her death was related to the “epigastric hardness” or the failure to diagnose and treat that condition; however a doctor had determined the need to perform an ultrasound in the days prior to the victim’s death in order to “rule out significant pathology” and iii) there was no investigation to determine whether her death was the result of not having been properly treated by the nurse or not having been taken immediately to see a doctor after the fall she suffered. Moreover, the Public Prosecution Service did not establish contact at any time with the victim’s family and, therefore, did not investigate aspects such as her mother’s state of health up to the time of her death, or the affirmation of Mrs. Chinchilla’s daughter, that on the day of her death she had received informal information that her mother would be released from prison as a result of the motion filed and that several inmates reported that her mother was in a good state after her fall. 72