series of factors that caused him anxiety and fear before his death (supra para. 203), and also to investigate presumed acts of torture. 270. In this regard, the Court has indicated that, pursuant to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the obligation to ensure the rights recognized in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention entails the State’s duty to investigate possible acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This duty to investigate is augmented by the provisions of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Convention against Torture, which obliges the State “to take […] effective measures to prevent and punish torture within the sphere of its jurisdiction,” and also “to prevent and punish […] other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” In addition, in accordance with Article 8 of this Convention, States Parties guarantee: “[…] that any person making an accusation of having been subjected to torture within their jurisdiction shall have the right to an impartial examination of his case[, and] if there is an accusation or wellfounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, […] their respective authorities will proceed ex officio and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal proceedings.” 360 271. Furthermore, the Court observes that the investigation of a death in detention may reveal that it is directly or indirectly linked to a pattern or practice. In such situations, the investigation must examine the possible root causes in order to prevent this type of incident. In this regard, States must record essential information concerning persons in custody, including: (a) the time and place of their arrest; (b) the state of their health upon arrival at the place of detention; (c) the names of the persons responsible for holding them in custody, or at the time, and (d) the place of their interrogation. All of this must be recorded and made available for judicial or administrative proceedings. 361 272. In particular, the Court notes that the autopsy revealed a series of injuries (supra para. 200) that the authorities were aware of, and they also knew of the danger that the detainee faced. However, the evidence provided by the State does not show that a forensic examination was performed to verify the health of Eduardo Landaeta when he entered the police station. On May 21, 2001, the presumed victim’s father, through his legal representative, asked the prosecutor for the Criminal Procedural Regime of the Judicial Circuit of the state of Aragua to investigate the possible acts of torture, which could have been ordered and witnessed by agents of the Public Order and Security Corps of the state of Aragua. 362 273. The Court notes that, despite this situation, the State failed to conduct any investigation ex officio to determine the origin of the said injuries or who caused them, 363 even though the authorities were aware of them and also knew of the danger that the detainee faced. 364 After these facts had been reported on May 21, 2001, the 360 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 147 and Case of García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre v. Mexico. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 273, para. 55 and 69 to 71. 361 Cf. ICRC, Guidelines for Investigating Deaths in Custody, p. 21, Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra, para. 53 and Case of J., supra, para. 152. 362 Cf. Undated brief requesting judicial measures presented by the legal representative of Ignacio Landaeta Muñoz (annexes to the answering brief, folio 7550). 363 The evidence provided by the State reveals that, when Samuel Uzcátegui’s testimony was being taken, in answer to the question regarding Eduardo Landaeta’s condition at the time of one of the transfers, he stated that he was in perfect health. However, the question was isolated and in general, and not in the context of investigations into the presumed acts against the integrity of Eduardo Landaeta in the custody of the State. Cf. Testimony of Samuel Uzcátegui before the Prosecutor of the Transitory Procedural Regime of the state of Aragua of October 2, 2006 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 7914). 364 Cf. Testimony of Ignacio Landaeta Muñoz of February 13, 2004 (annexes to the answering brief, folios 7378 and 7379), and Testimony of María Magdalena Mejías of February 16, 2004 (annexes to the answering brief, folios 7382 and 7383). 77