158. The Court has verified various omissions in the medical care provided to the presumed victims who are deceased. Specifically, the State failed to comply with its obligation to provide antiretroviral therapy, to perform diagnostic tests for the care and treatment of HIV and opportunistic diseases, and to provide social support. These omissions constitute therapeutic failures and, if they had not occurred, this would have reduced the probability of the opportunistic diseases occurring that led to the death of the presumed victims. The Court therefore considers that the existence of a causal nexus has been proved in these cases. 159. In this regard, the Court notes that: (i) Facundo Gómez Reyes died from tuberculosis; (ii) Reina López Mujica died from tuberculosis and anemia; (iii) Petrona López Robledo, (iv) Rita Mariana Dubón Orozco and (v) Alberto Quiché Cuxeva died from pneumonia; (vi) Silvia Mirtala Alvarez Villatoro died from bacterial meningitis, and (vii) Ismar Ramírez Chajón died from disseminated mycosis. The Court also notes that: (viii) Guadalupe Herminia Cayaxon García is deceased and, among other diseases and illnesses, had suffered from herpes, enlarged liver and bronchial hyperreactivity; (ix) Elsa Miriam Estrada Ruíz is deceased and had suffered from oral candidiasis, herpes zoster and neuropathy; (x) Juana Aguilar is deceased and, among other diseases, had suffered from herpes zoster and sarcoidosis; (xi) María Blanca Vaíl López is deceased and, among other diseases, had suffered from, herpes and candidiasis, and (xii) José Rubén Delgado López is deceased and, among other diseases, had suffered from candidiasis, cryptococcus, sarcoidosis and herpes. Consequently, with regard to the persons mentioned in this paragraph, the State is responsible for the violation of the obligation to ensure the right to life recognized in Article 4(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. However, the Court does not have sufficient information to determine the cause of death of (xiii) Luis Edwin Cruz Gramajo, so that, in this regard, the State is not responsible for violating the obligation to ensure the right to life recognized in Article 4(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 160. Second, the Court notes that the representatives’ arguments concerning the violation of the right to a decent life refer to the State’s failure to comply with its obligation to adopt positive measures to ensure comprehensive, accessible and acceptable medical care to the presumed victims. In this regard, the Court notes that these arguments have been analyzed in the section on the right to health; therefore, it will not examine them in this section. B.5.2. Analysis of the right to personal integrity 161. The American Convention expressly recognizes a person’s right to physical and mental integrity, and the violation of this right “is a type of violation that has different degrees and […] its physical and mental effects vary in intensity according to endogenous and exogenous factors that must be proved in each specific situation.”187 The Court has established that personal integrity is directly and immediately connected to health care, 188 and that the lack of adequate medical care may entail the violation of Article 5(1) of the Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 57, and Case of the Xucuru Indigenous People and its members v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2018. Series C No. 346, para. 171. 187 Cf. Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, para. 117, and Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 152. 188 55