35 dismissed and archived.305 On January 18, 2005, the Seventh Court of First Instance on Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes of the Department of Guatemala ordered to archive the case.306 B. Determinations as to law 1. Preliminary consideration 120. In its report on admissibility, based on the prima facie determination made in that stage, the Commission identified two main claims: The first concerned the medical care that Ms. Chinchilla received while she was deprived of their liberty; the second is related to her death while in the State’s custody. Thus, the Commission examined the admissibility requirements taking into account those two components of the case and came to the conclusion that its pronouncement on merits would have regard to Ms. Chinchilla’s death and not to the possible liability of the State for not granting her freedom on illness-related grounds under the incidental motions for early release. Therefore, what the Commission must decide is if the State fulfilled its obligation as guarantor of the rights to life and humane treatment of Ms. Chinchilla, who, as mentioned in the proven facts, died in the COF on May 25, 2004. 121. In the merits stage, a determination as to whether or not the State of Guatemala is responsible for Ms. Chinchilla’s death requires a comprehensive assessment of this case, including the acts or omissions of the state authorities with respect to the progressive deterioration of the alleged victim’s health while in the State’s custody. The Commission notes that the parties concur on the need for this comprehensive assessment given that throughout the merits stage submissions have continued to be presented and evidence proffered on the state of Ms. Chinchilla’s health prior to her death, as well as on the adequacy or inadequacy of the State’s response to her state of health. All the arguments and evidence that the Commission has received regarding the situation of Ms. Chinchilla’s health had been submitted to adversarial processing. 122. In light of the foregoing, the Commission will now proceed to pronounce on the State’s obligations with regard to the rights to life and humane treatment and will analyze if the State acted in a manner consistent with those obligations (Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention). Then, the Commission will pronounce on whether or not the State provided an effective remedy (Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention). Finally, the Commission will analyze if the right to humane treatment of Ms. Chinchilla’s relatives were violated (Article 5 of the American Convention). 2. General considerations on the rights to life and humane treatment in relation to medical assistance for persons deprived of their liberty 123. The Inter-American Court has held that the right to life plays a fundamental role in the American Convention as the exercise of all other rights depends on its protection. 307 Given that nature, states have the obligation to ensure the creation of such conditions as may be required for its full enjoyment and 305 Appendix 15. Public Prosecution Service. Prosecution Unit for Crimes against Life and the Person, “Vida” Office 04, MO001-2004-105950, January 11, 2005. Appendix 10 to the State’s brief of July 13, 2010. 306 In that regard, the court held that “after studying and analyzing the procedures described in the record, the court finds that there is no compelling evidence or legal certainty that would justify initiating criminal proceedings, bearing in mind that, according to the medical examiner’s report, the causes of María Inés Chinchilla Sandoval’s death were pulmonary edema and hemorrhagic pancreatitis. Therefore, this court has no choice but to make the appropriate decision under the law. ... Based on the foregoing and the above-cited laws, this court rules in in favor of the Public Prosecution Service’s request, dismisses the case for lack of merit and, therefore, orders the matter to be set aside. Appendix 16. Certification of final decision 429-96. Judiciary Final Decision No. 429-96 OF- 7º C-394-2005 Seventh Court of First Instance on Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes of the Department of Guatemala. January 18, 2005. Appendix 8 to the initial petition. 307 I/A Court H.R., The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, par. 144; Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 78.