188. With respect to the refusal to give information or reveal his fate or whereabouts, the Commission notes that Mr. Guachalá’s mother, from the moment she went to the hospital on January 17, 2004 and was told that her son had escaped, continued seeking information about what happened at the hospital itself, as well as from various state authorities, as appears from the facts proven. The Commission notes that at the hospital she was not given accurate information about what happened to her son and the supposed conditions in which he was said to have escaped. To the contrary, based on what the director of the center said, it would appear he is shifting responsibility for the disappearance to the mother, supposedly for having failed to visit. It should be mentioned that from the facts proven it is not clear what person or persons were responsible for the custody of Mr. Guachalá. For example, Dr. Erika Quimbuilco indicated on several occasions that keeping custody over him was not her duty. As indicated, the director indicated that the patients become very anxious when their family members do not visit, without specifically indicating who was responsible for his custody. At the same time, the nurse said that Luis Eduardo Guachalá Chimbó was separated for a few minutes to help another patient, but that upon returning he was no longer there, which could reflect a structural shortcoming in terms of hospital staffing. In sum, the hospital did not give Ms. Guachalá detailed information about what happened to her son during his stay at the center. To the contrary, just days after the disappearance, the Hospital rushed to issue a “discharge sheet” (“hoja de egreso”), indicating that Mr. Guachalá had left the hospital. 189. In addition, the Commission considers that the fact that Luis Eduardo Guachalá’s mother had not been able to see her son during the time he was hospitalized, particularly in the first days, because supposedly he was completely sedated, is an indication of the State’s responsibility for what happened to Luis Eduardo Guachalá. The IACHR notes that on Monday, January 12, 2004, Mr. Guachalá’s mother went to see her son and did not find him in the room where she had left him, or in the barber shop where they told her he could be found, or anywhere else in the hospital. According to her own testimony no one was able to tell her where her son could be found. To this is added the account of another patient, according to which Mr. Guachalá had suffered a heart attack, and that this information was being covered up by the hospital. It should be mentioned that the State has not denied that Mr. Guachalá’s mother was told that her son would remain sedated for practically two whole days after his hospitalization, without any explanation for such a severe intervention. 190. The Commission also attributes special importance to the fact that the State has not been able to make a showing of its version that the victim supposedly fled the hospital. That version, as will be seen below, did not result from an effective and diligent investigation into what happened, and it losses credibility considering that neither the victim nor his corpse has not been found to this day, and that he never contacted his family. Rather, the time that has elapsed without any information whatsoever about Mr. Guachalá strengthens the hypothesis that his fate may be death in the context of the treatment received by the State and its subsequent coverup. 191. All these elements, taken together and analyzed in light of the State’s breach of the duty to investigate the facts seriously so as to clarify them as well as the presumption of responsibility when a person disappears while under the custody of the State lead to the conclusion that the State of Ecuador violated the right to life and personal integrity, established in Articles 4.1 and 5.1 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Luis Eduardo Guachalá Chimbó. C. On the rights to judicial guarantees 336 and judicial protection 337 (Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument) 192. According to the Court, the right to judicial guarantees implies that every person who has suffered a violation of his or her human rights “has the right … to obtain clarification of the events that violated Article 8(1) of the American Convention: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature 337 Article 25(1) of the American Convention: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 336 35