children, violating, respectively, the rights established in Articles 4(1), 5(1) and 19 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to his detriment. 88. Regarding the medical care provided until his death on January 20, 2005, the Commission had insufficient evidence to establish that medical malpractice occurred and that this caused the victim’s death. It emphasized that a serious and diligent investigation should have been conducted, especially since a state entity was involved which was responsible for the victim, who in addition was a minor. However, no investigation was conducted. Consequently, it concluded that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to guarantee the right to life by failing to investigate seriously the complaint concerning possible medical negligence and, therefore, violated the rights established in Articles 4(1) and 19 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 89. The representatives asserted that, since Rigoberto Barrios did not die on the day he was assaulted, and taking into account the violence used by the State officials, as well as the physical and mental trauma he endured, it is reasonable to infer that he suffered from the date of the incident until his death. In addition, before his death, Rigoberto Barrios identified one of his assailants as a police agent. He was 16 years old at the time of the incident; hence, the State also failed to comply with its special obligations of guarantee and protection required by his condition as a minor. Therefore, they asked the Court to declare that the State had violated Articles 4, 5 and 19 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Rigoberto Barrios. Lastly, they considered that the international responsibility for violation of the right to life contained in Article 4 of the Convention is aggravated because he was a beneficiary of the provisional measures ordered in this case. 90. They also affirmed that the State was responsible for violating the right to life, because the actions of the medical personnel were characterized by “serious medical negligence.” On this basis, they concluded that Venezuela had not respected the right to life of Rigoberto Barrios established in Article 4 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, owing to medical malpractice that contributed to his death. 91. Regarding the death of Rigoberto Barrios on January 20, 2005, the State indicated that “it was not possible to establish the participation of [any] police agent during the investigations.” It also affirmed that it had not violated the rights to life or to personal integrity of members of the Barrios family. ii. Facts 92. At approximately 11 p.m. on January 9, 2005, Rigoberto Barrios, who was 16 years of age, was at the corner of a car repair shop accompanied by a girl when they were approached by two armed individuals99 who identified themselves as “from the Government,” asked Rigoberto Barrios his name, and ordered his friend to walk away with her head lowered.100 They then shot Rigoberto Barrios several times with a rifle and a revolver.101 While some people were trying to help him, a police patrol car drove by without 99 Cf. Record of interview with Rigoberto Barrios by the Twentieth Prosecutor of Aragua state with competence for the protection of fundamental rights on January 13, 2005 (file of attachments to the answering brief, tome I, attachment 3, folio 4609). 100 Cf. Record of interview with Genesis Carolina Martinez by the Twentieth Prosecutor of Aragua state with competence for the protection of fundamental rights on January 26, 2005 (file of attachments to the answering brief, tome I, attachment 3, folio 4584). 101 Cf. Record of interview with Rigoberto Barrios of January 13, 2005, supra note 99, folio 4610, and Report of forensic autopsy performed on January 22, 2005 (file of attachments to the answering brief, tome I, attachment 3, folios 4621 and 4622). 34