127. According to information provided by the petitioners, which was not refuted by the State in any documentary evidence reflecting dates of death, the Commission notes that Alberto Quiché Cuxeva, Facundo Gómez Reyes, Reina López Mujica, Ismar Ramírez Chajón, Petrona López González and Rita Dubón Orozco, died prior to the time the State began the transfer of their cases to the public health system. Accordingly, in view of the State’s general recognition that the victims in the instant case failed to receive medical care prior to 2006 and 2007, as well as the absence of documentary evidence to indicate that these persons received the comprehensive care described above prior to their deaths, the Commission finds that these persons died from diseases known to be opportunistic, within the timeframe that the care they required from the State was not received. Consequently, the Commission regards these deaths to be attributable to the Guatemalan State. 128. As for the two persons who died within the timeframe that some type of treatment was given by the State, namely, Luis Edwin Cruz in 2008 and María Vail in 2011, the Commission notes that the petitioners claimed that the care received prior to their deaths was inadequate. Specifically, in the case of Luis Edwin Cruz, they contended that no genotypic or phenotypic testing was performed on him. As for María Vail, they argued that CD4 cell count and viral load testing were not regularly conducted on her, which led to her contracting opportunistic diseases such as otitis and histoplasmosis. As it did with the great majority of the victims in the case, the State just reported that these persons would attend their medical appointments regularly and were in good health. The State did not provide any response to the failures of treatment alleged by the petitioners with regard to these two persons and, therefore, the Commission finds that the available information enables it to conclude that these deaths are also attributable to the State of Guatemala. 129. It should also be noted that, in its written submissions, the State claimed that it would conduct an investigation to determine the cause of death of the deceased victims. Nonetheless, the State has not submitted any information regarding conducting any investigation into this or regarding the outcome thereof. The Commission notes that because the cases mostly involve omissions or negative facts, in other words, the failure to act, there is no evidence available to the victims to prove the facts are true,117 while the State could have proven it provided comprehensive treatment to the victims, though it did not in the instant case, as can be surmised from the descriptions given in the proven facts section. 130. Based on the preceding considerations, the Commission concludes that the State violated the right to life, as established in Article 4.1 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the eight deceased victims.118 Additionally, the Commission finds that it can be inferred that these persons endured physical and mental suffering prior to their death and, therefore, their right to humane treatment was also violated, as established in Article 5.1 of the Convention in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument. 1.3.3 Situation of the alleged victims subsequent to 2006 and 2007 131. The Commission notes that both parties acknowledged that beginning in 2006-2007, the alleged victims were transferred to public health services. The dispute lies in whether the publicly provided health care was comprehensive, as the petitioners argued it was, or whether it was adequate, as contended by the State and, therefore, served to overcome the lack of protection prior to 2006-2007. 132. The IACHR reiterates, firstly, that as was explained in the previous section, the State’s international responsibility came into effect precisely when the victims did not have any type of access to health treatment, including antiretroviral medicine, diagnostic examinations and periodic monitoring, and other components of comprehensive treatment for persons with HIV/AIDS, infringing their right to life and 117 See, mutatis mutandis. IA Court of HR. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170. Par. 73. 118 Alberto Quiché Cuxeva, Reina López Mujica, Ismar Ramírez Chajón, Rita Bubón Orozco, Facundo Gómez Reyes, José Rubén Delgado, Luis Edwin Cruz Gramau and María Vail. 33