15 who do not generate international responsibility for the State. This reasoning was endorsed by the Inter-American Commission upon declaring this article inadmissible and rejecting its violation at the stage of the merits. The right to life might be the subject matter of an action for damages before the civil courts, a remedy to seek pecuniary compensation for the damages suffered which has not been exhausted by the alleged victims. b) Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention. The alleged responsibility of the State for negligence and lack of quality treatment is groundless. Those are domestically enforceable through constitutional appeal if sufficient evidence is produced to prove the lack of control or negligence by the State and the causative link between the alleged State failure to act and the threat or damages caused. c) Article 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression) of the Convention. The responsibility for the concealment of information about a private individual, which could have been the grounds for a judicial action requesting that it be disclosed in due time, cannot be attributed to the State, as the foregoing was requested three years after the death of Laura Albán. d) Article 17 (Rights of the Family) of the Convention. The extension of the judicial proceedings as a result of wrong private legal advice is not attributable to the State. The civil and criminal judicial officials have acted with due diligence in these proceedings. 41. Now that the arguments by the parties have been pointed out, the Tribunal will thereupon analyze the alleged violation of Articles 4, 5, 13 and 17 of the American Convention. a) Article 4(1) (Right to Life) 42. Regarding the arguments submitted by the representatives, the Court does not find sufficient elements to attribute the State international responsibility for the death of Laura Albán, in terms with Article 4 of the Convention. Nonetheless, the Court will analyze in chapter VII if the State has complied with its obligation to guarantee the right to life by means of a serious investigation to clarify the facts of the present case which refered to a complaint about a criminal action. b) Article 5(1) (Right to Humane Treatment) 43. As it has already been pointed out, the Commission did not argue a violation of Article 5 of the Convention. On the other hand, in the written brief containing pleadings and motions, the representatives did allege so in connection with the facts established in the paragraph 39(b). Lastly, the State requested that the Court dismiss the alleged violation. 44. The Court has indicated that the representatives of the victims or their families can allege other rights than the ones claimed by the Commission on the