51 189. Of particular significance is the case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, in which the Court examined the death of a person in State custody. The Court held that “the State authorities had the obligation to follow up on a logical line of investigation designed to determine the possible responsibilities of the prison staff for the death of Ricardo Videla, since the omissions related to his detention conditions and/or his state of depression could have contributed to this act.” The Court specified that the State had “the obligation to disprove the possibility of the responsibility of its agents, taking into account the measures that they should have adopted in order to safeguard the rights of a person in its custody,” and “to collect the evidence that this entailed.”367 190. In the present case, the Commission notes that the conclusions of the Prosecutor’s Office and the Court were based on the fact that Ms. Chinchilla had died of a "pulmonary edema" and "hemorrhagic pancreatitis," which led her to die of natural causes without there being a crime to investigate. However, at no time did the authority in charge of the inquiry investigate the possible responsibilities of State officials, including correctional, medical, and judicial officers, for alleged violation of their duty to ensure Ms. Chinchilla’s rights to life and humane treatment or the omissions with respect to her conditions of incarceration, the lack of adequate medical treatment, and the factors that could have contributed to her death. 191. In that regard, the Commission finds that the information in the procedural records connected with the enforcement of her sentence and the incidental motions presented pointed unequivocally to the fact that her diseases were getting worse as a result of the lack of adequate treatment. Furthermore, there was information that she was in a depressive state in the days leading up to her death and that she had epigastric hardness on which an ultrasound scan was omitted to be carried out. Those circumstances were not properly investigated. 192. The IACHR notes, in turn, that no authority conducted any analysis to identify the nature of the appropriate responsibilities under the Guatemalan legal system. On this point, the Commission emphasizes that the responsibility of agents of the state for acts such as the ones in the present may be diverse in nature. In this regard, “the determination of criminal and/or administrative responsibility each has its own substantive and procedural rules. Consequently, the failure to determine criminal responsibility should not prevent the continuation of the investigation into other types of responsibilities, such as administrative responsibilities.”368 193. Finally, the Commission notes that the failure to conduct an investigation has also meant a failure to disclose truth, with the result that, to date, there has still not been a judicial determination as to whether or not the "pulmonary edema" and "hemorrhagic pancreatitis" established as causes of death were linked to Ms. Chinchilla’s diseases and whether or not they were caused by the lack of adequate medical attention. This situation of uncertainty has been allowed to linger unreasonably to this day, almost 10 years since Ms. Chinchilla died. 194. The State has suggested that there was a “lack of interest” on the part of the family in the case, since they did not file a criminal complaint. However, the Commission recalls that where violations of the life or well-being of a person in state custody are concerned, it is not necessary to examine the steps that the relatives of the victim may or may not have taken with a view to the investigation of the facts, given that, since that is an ex officio obligation of the State, the Commission must analyze the action taken by the latter on September 29, 1999. Series C No. 71, par. 123. See also I/A Court H.R., Blake Case, Reparations, Judgment of January 22, 1999. Series C No. 48, par. 65. 367 I/A Court H.R., César Mendoza et al. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C, No. 260, par. 223. 368 I/A Court H.R., César Mendoza et al. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C, No. 260, par. 224.