54 their tasks.99 Finally, the right of detainees to communicate with third parties, who provide or will provide assistance and defense, goes together with the obligation of the State agents to immediately communicate to said persons the minor’s detention, even if the minor has not requested it.100 137. The Court deems proven that at the time of the facts there were police practices in Argentina, including the so-called razzias, detentions to verify identity and detentions under police edits on misdemeanors. Memorandum 40 authorized police officers to decide whether or not they notified the Juvenile Judge regarding children or adolescents detained (supra 69.A.1). Razzias are incompatible with respect for fundamental rights, including presumption of innocence, existence of a court order for detention –except in situations of flagrancy- and the obligation to notify those in charge of the minors. 138. The State must respect the right to life of all persons under its jurisdiction, enshrined in Article 4 of the American Convention. This obligation expresses itself in special modes in the case of minors, taking into account the provisions regarding protection of children set forth in the American Convention and in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The role of the State as guarantor with respect to this right carries with it the obligation to prevent situations that might lead, by action or omission, to negatively affect it. As this Court stated previously (supra 110-121) and as it pertains to the concrete case, if Walter David Bulacio was detained in good health and subsequently died, the State is under the obligation to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of what happened and to disprove accusations regarding its responsibility, by supplying valid evidence.101 In its role as guarantor, the State does in fact have the responsibility to guarantee the rights of individuals under its custody as well as that of supplying information and evidence pertaining to what has happened to the detainee.102 C) ADJUSTMENT OF DOMESTIC PROVISIONS TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 139. With respect to the measures of reparation requested pertaining to Argentinean laws and regulations, the Court takes note of the efforts made by the State subsequent to the facts in the instant case (supra 108.b), to adjust its domestic system to the requirements of its international obligations regarding this matter. 99 Cf., Juridical status and human rights of the child, supra note 4, para. 78. 100 Cf., Council of Europe. Committee on the Prevention of Torture, 9th General Report [CPT/Inf (99) 12], para. 21. 101 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 4, para. 100. Likewise, Cf., Eur. Court HR, Salman v. Turkey, supra note 83, para. 98; Eur. Court HR, Timurtas v. Turkey, supra note 83, para. 82; Eur. Court HR, Selmouni v. France, supra note 83, para. 87; Eur. Court HR, Ribitsch v. Austria, supra note 78, para. 34; and Eur. Court H. R., Case of Tomasi v. France, supra note 78, paras. 108-110. 102 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 4, para. 111; Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 30, para. 65; and Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note 30, para. 55. The European Court has extensive case law along similar lines: Eur. Court HR, Aksoy v. Turkey. judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, para. 61; Eur. Court HR, Salman v. Turkey, supra note 83, para. 98; Eur. Court HR, Timurtas v. Turkey, supra note 83, para. 82; Eur. Court HR, Selmouni v. France, supra note 83, para. 87; Eur. Court HR, Ribitsch v. Austria, supra note 78, para. 34; and Eur. Court H. R., Case of Tomasi v. France, supra note 78, paras. 108-111.