171. The fulfillment of this obligation is particularly strict when there is evidence of torture 298 and in any case where the death of the detainee occurs. 299 Indeed, the State, as guarantor of the right to life and personal integrity of detainees, has the duty to prevent all situations that might lead, either by action or omission, to the suppression of these rights. In this sense, if a person was detained in good health and later died, it lies with the State to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of what happened and to disprove accusations regarding its responsibility, through valid evidence, considering that there is a presumption of State responsibility for what happens to a person while in custody of the State.300 172. In these cases, the State must initiate ex officio and with due diligence an investigation in order to determine the nature and causes of the injuries, and ensure the identification and prosecution of those responsible, if applicable. Conducting an effective investigation is a key and conditioning element for the protection of the substantive rights that are affected or annulled by these situations. 301 173. To be effective, the investigation must be carried out by independent authorities, who should have no hierarchical or institutional connection with those implicated.302 The IACHR has stated that when it comes to a violent death in which the involvement of State officials is under investigation, States must ensure that the responsibility to investigate and prosecute human rights violations is assigned to the authorities who are in the best position to effectively carry it out with autonomy and independence. In this regard, States should establish safeguards for the competent authorities to be able to operate without being subjected to the sphere of influence of public officials allegedly involved in the crime, and also, to ensure that witnesses and relatives of victims take part in the proceedings without fear of reprisals. 303 174. In this regard, the IACHR reiterates that, in accordance with the doctrine and constant jurisprudence of the inter-American system of human rights protection, in addition to posing serious 304 problems for an impartial and independent administration of justice , military criminal courts are not the competent jurisdiction to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute and punish the perpetrators of human rights violations.305 Indeed, the IACHR has stressed that military jurisdiction should be applied only when military criminal legal rights are affected, during the particular functions of State defense and security, and never to investigate human rights violations. 306 175. In its judgment in the case Gomes Lund et al (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) v Brazil, the InterAmerican Court ordered the State to ensure that criminal proceedings initiated by the events of that case - 298 I/A Court H.R. Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Serie C No. 160, para. 344; and, Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Serie C No.164, para. 88. 299 I/A Court H.R. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Serie C No. 100; I/A Court H.R. Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Serie C No. 149, para. 147ñ I/A Court H.R. Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013 Serie C No. 260. Para. 218; European Court. Salman v. Turkey, cited above, at § 99; Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 91, ECHR 2001‑III. 300 IACHR. Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc.64. December 31, 2011. Para. 270. 301 I/A Court H.R. Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Serie C No. 160, para. 253. See also, I/A Court H.R. Case of Servellón García et al. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Serie C No. 152, para. 119; Case of Ximenes Lopes. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Serie C No. 149, para. 147; Case of the Ituango Massacres. Judgment of July 1, 2006 Serie C No. 148, para. 297; and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Serie C No. 167, para. 100. 302 Ramsahai et al. v. The Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, § 325, CEDH 2007 -..., Güleç v. Turkey, Judgment of July 27, 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1733, §§ 81- 82, and Ogur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21954/93, §§ 91 to 92, CEDH 1999-III). 303 IACHR. Annual Report 2013. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter III (Violence Against Journalists and Media Workers: Inter-American standards and national practices on prevention, protection and prosecution of perpetrators). OEA/Ser.L/V/II.149. Doc. 50. December 31,2013. Para. 1. 304 IACHR. The Right to Truth in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.152. Doc. 2. August 13, 2014. Para. 106 305 I/A Court H.R. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Serie C No. 209. Paras. 272-278; IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.116.Doc.5 rev.1, October 22, 2002, para. 230; IACHR. Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 57. December 31, 2009. Para. 162. 306 IACHR. The Right to Truth in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.152. Doc. 2. August 13, 2014. Para. 103. 40