57 police. Later, Mr. Damião Ximenes-Lopes was bathed and while he was still with his hands tied, he fell off the bed. The alleged victim was left lying on the floor, was given medication and later died, while no attending physician was there. The autopsy revealed that his body showed localized flaying on the nose, right shoulder, the front part of the knees and the left foot and localized echimosis in the region of the left eye, homolateral shoulder and hands, whereby the Court finds it proven that the death occurred in violent circumstances (supra paras. 112(9), 112(10), 112(11), and 112(14)). 122. In its partial acknowledgment of international liability, the State acknowledged the facts alleged in the complaint regarding the death of Mr. Damião Ximenes-Lopes, and the lack of prevention necessary to overcome the conditions that allowed such event to happen, as well as the then precarious conditions of the mental health care system to which the alleged victim was subjected, which amounted to the violation of Article 4 of the Convention. The State further acknowledged the mistreatment suffered by Mr. Ximenes-Lopes before his death, which resulted in the violation of Article 5 of the Convention ( supra paras. 36, 63, and 66). 123. Notwithstanding, the Court finds it relevant to examine certain aspects regarding the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention in the instant case, since this is the first time that the Court has had the opportunity to issue a ruling on the violation of the rights of a person with mental illness. The Court will analyze this issue from two perspectives: A) the rights of persons with mental illness, and B) the duties of the State regarding such persons. A) The rights of persons with mental illness 1.The right to life and to humane treatment 124. The Court has repeatedly held that the right to life is an essential human right, whose enjoyment is a prerequisite for the exercise of all other human rights. Due to the essential nature of the right to life, no restrictive approaches thereto 108 are to be admitted. 125. By virtue of the fundamental role ascribed to the right to life by the Convention, the Court has argued in its case law that the States have the duty to ensure the creation of the conditions required to prevent the violations of this inalienable right, and particularly, the duty to prevent their agents from infringing 108 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, paras. 82 and 83; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 4, paras. 150, 151 and 152; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 25, paras. 119 and 120; Case of the Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 21, para. 232; Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 30, paras. 161 and 162; Case of Huilca Tecse. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, paras. 65 and 66; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, paras. 156 and 158; Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paras. 128 and 129; Case of 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 153; Case of Myrna Mack Chang. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, paras. 152 and 153; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 30, para. 110; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144.