serious deterioration of his health (supra para 66). Then, in the Hospital Eugenio Espejo of Quito, they were unable to save Mr. Vera Vera's life, given that his health condition was already very delicate. Ultimately, the surgery Mr. Vera Vera needed was not carried out until ten days after he received a gunshot wound and was arrested despite his serious health condition. (supra para. 70, 72, and 73) In addition, Ms. Vera Valdez repeatedly had to push for the care provided by the State (supra paras. 56 to 58, 60, 66, 69, 71, and 73). For the Court, the number of omissions of the State through its agents during the time that Pedro Miguel Vera Vera was in their custody amounts to medical negligence which resulted in his death and thereby implicates the State’s international responsibility. 76. Additionally, the Court considers it useful to refer to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in cases where there has been negligent or inadequate medical treatment of persons deprived of liberty to such an extent that the European Court has held that States have incurred a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights,89 which enshrines the prohibition of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, among other things. In this regard, the European Court considered that in the analysis of such violations: 75. “[…] ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim […]. Although the purpose of such treatment is a factor to be taken into account, in particular whether it was intended to humiliate or debase the victim, the absence of any such purpose does not inevitably lead to a finding that there has been no violation of Article 3 […]. 76. Moreover, it cannot be ruled out that the detention of a person who is ill may raise issues under Article 3 of the Convention […].90 77. Thus, the European Court took into account factors such as the lack of pertinent emergency and specialized medical care, excessive deterioration of the physical and mental health of the person deprived of liberty and exposure to severe or prolonged pain as a result of the lack of timely and diligent 89 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 90 C.E.D.H., Case of Sarban V. Moldova, (No. 3456/05), Judgment of October 4, 2005. Final, January 4, 2006, paras. 75 and 76: [I]ll-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim[.]. Although the purpose of such treatment is a factor to be taken into account, in particular whether it was intended to humiliate or debase the victim, the absence of any such purpose does not inevitably lead to a finding that there has been no violation of Article 3[.] [M]oreover, it cannot be ruled out that the detention of a person who is ill may raise issues under Article 3 of the Convention […].” 31