to provide medical care or the provision of deficient or negligent medical care is a violation of the obligation to protect the right to life of individuals deprived of liberty.141 142. Regarding the duty to investigate the deaths of people who die in custody as a result of deficient medical care and with no indications of violence, the Inter-American Court has stated that: Specifically, as a particularly urgent obligation and an element that is fundamental for guaranteeing the right to life,142 the Court has established that when investigating the death of an individual who died in State custody, the corresponding authorities have a duty to launch an ex officio investigation without delay that is serious, independent, impartial, and effective143—that is, with due diligence144—and supported “by all legal measures available, aimed at determining the truth.”145 That investigation must be carried out by the State as a juridical duty and not as a simple formality doomed from the start to failure or as a mere processing of private interests that depends on the procedural initiative of victims or their relatives or the submission of evidentiary elements by private parties.146 Essentially, the State has an obligation to provide an immediate, satisfactory, and convincing explanation of what happened to an individual who was in its custody.147 In this case, the Court notes that there is no indication of violence in the death of the alleged victim (nor was violence alleged). However, this does not minimize the State’s duty to conduct an official investigation given her situation of being deprived of liberty.148 143. In this case, the Commission notes that there is no indication that the State performed a thorough examination of the alleged victim from the moment she was deprived of liberty. The Commission emphatically underscores that Manuela's medical history shows that starting in 2007, Manuela had a mass on her neck, meaning that an initial medical examination on her intake to the prison would have enabled a timely diagnosis of her serious illness—an illness from which it can be inferred she was already suffering—and made it possible to provide her with the medical care that she needed at that time. 144. Precisely as a result of this initial omission, it was not until 2009—that is, one year after the alleged victim entered State custody—that she was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma. At that time, it was noted that she had "a mass on the left side of her neck for more than a year," as well as that she had lost more than 30 pounds in three months. Regarding this, the IACHR observes that there is no record of regular and systemic treatment prior to this diagnosis, which demonstrates that this diagnosis and subsequent treatments Inter-American Court, Case of Chinchilla Sandoval v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 29, 2016. Series C No. 312, párr.189. 142 Inter-American Court, Case of Chinchilla Sandoval v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 29, 2016. Series C No. 312, párr.257. Citing. Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 88; and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 17, 2015. Series C No. 292, para. 348. 143 Inter-American Court, Case of Chinchilla Sandoval v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 29, 2016. Series C No. 312, párr.257. Citing. Cf. Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 87; and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, supra, para. 162. 144 Inter-American Court, Case of Chinchilla Sandoval v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 29, 2016. Series C No. 312, párr.257. Citing. Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Brothers v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 83; and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment dated August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 217. 145 Inter-American Court, Case of Chinchilla Sandoval v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 29, 2016. Series C No. 312, párr.257. Citing. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Merits, supra, para. 177; and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, supra, para. 162. 146 Inter-American Court, Case of Chinchilla Sandoval v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 29, 2016. Series C No. 312, párr.257. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177; and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, supra, para. 131 and 161. 147 Inter-American Court, Case of Chinchilla Sandoval v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 29, 2016. Series C No. 312, párr.257. Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 111, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 88. Also see, mutatis mutandi, Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador, supra, paras. 151 and 152. 148 Inter-American Court, Case of Chinchilla Sandoval v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 29, 2016. Series C No. 312, párr.258. 141 27