89. The Court notes that the only investigation conducted by the State in relation to the facts of this case consists in a police report prepared in 1995, namely, two years after the incident, which allegedly was intended to clarify “the alleged violation of the human rights of [... Mr. Vera Vera] by members of the Police Institution.” 100 In this document, it is stated that statements were taken from five policemen, including one who was the doctor who treated Mr. Vera Vera in the Provisional Detention Center of Santo Domingo de los Colorados, and three others. It also recounts the events that began with the chase of Mr. Vera Vera and culminates with his death at the Eugenio Espejo Hospital of Quito, and it makes certain conclusions about the circumstances of the arrest but not about the possible negligence of State actors charged with providing medical care to Mr. Vera Vera while he was in detention. 101 In this regard, taking into account the reiterated jurisprudence of the Court regarding the investigation that should be performed whenever there are potential violations of life and physical integrity of a detainee who is under the custody of the State (supra, paras. 86 to 88), the Court considers that the Ecuadorian state police report made two years after the fact does not meet the standards established by this Court to fully discharge its obligation to investigate under the Convention, given that not all of the available legal means were used. The inquiry was not aimed at determining the truth and the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of those responsible for the facts, nor was it conducted by an impartial entity, but rather it was conducted by the police institution itself. 90. The State pointed out that during the pendency of this case, it could not be assumed that Mr. Vera Vera had been the victim of medical negligence (supra para. 36), given that at all times, he was treated by several doctors. Nevertheless, the Court considers it appropriate to specify that in this case, it was also alleged that, aside from the lack of investigation of medical negligence committed against Mr. Vera Vera, an investigation has also not been effectuated in order to determine responsibility for gunshot. 91. As such, the Court finds that under the duty of care, once Mr. Vera Vera was arrested and State agents realized that he had received a gunshot wound, the State should have initiated, ex officio, an investigation about the situation. Furthermore, this duty of care also meant that immediately after the death of Mr. Vera Vera it was the State’s obligation to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding it, since it did not involve just any person but rather one that was under their custody. their custody with impunity, and that investigation should be able to achieve the identification and punishment of those responsible.Cf. C.E.D.H., Case of Elci et al. V. Turquía, (No. 23141 and 25091/94), Judgment of November 13, 2003, paras. 648 and 649, and Case of Assenov et al. V. Bulgaria, (No. 24760/94), Judgment of October 28, 1999, para. 102. 100 Police report 95-P2-33-SDC of the National Office of Investigations, addressed to the Chief of the Command of Rural Services of Pichincha No. 1, on December 4, 1995 (case file of annexes to the application, annex 19, folio 67). 101 Cf. Police report 95-P2-33-SDC of the National Office of Investigations, addressed to the Chief of the Command of Rural Services of Pichincha No. 1, of December 4, 1995 (case file of annexes to the application, annex 19, folio 67-71). 36