39 the custody of the authorities because he failed to undergo surgery in time.329 Similarly, in the case of Juan Hernández Lima, the IACHR found that the victim, who was arrested for an administrative offense and ordered to spend 30 days in prison or pay a fine, died from a bout of cholera six days after his arrest. In this case the State failed to administer sufficient rehydration remedies, transfer Mr. Hernández Lima to a hospital, and notify a third party of his arrest.330 For its part, in the case of the Tarariyeva, the European court concluded that the lack or deficiency of the medical care provided is not consistent with the obligation to protect the right to life of persons deprived of their liberty. 331 The European Court has also found a state to bear international responsibility in a case in which a person had been deprived of their liberty and died from post-operative complications because of a lack of adequate medical care. 332 133. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has held that states, by arresting and detaining individuals, take the responsibility to care for their life. As such, it is incumbent on the State to ensure protection for that right, including adequate medical care that must be offered ex officio, and not make it incumbent on the detainee to request it. 333 The Case law of the Inter-American Court has established that States cannot invoke economic hardships to justify imprisonment conditions that do not comply with minimum international standards and respect the inherent dignity of the human being. 334 134. In sum, both the right to life and the right to humane treatment impose direct obligations on state authorities, whose compliance is particularly important, given that the situation of these persons is completely dependent upon the actions that the State takes in their favor. 335 These obligations are accentuated when the person is in a greater state of vulnerability because of serious health problems. 336 3. Analysis of Ms. Chinchilla’s situation during her detention and her death while in custody (Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention) 329 The IACHR took into consideration the fact that the victim received no medical treatment from April 13 to 16, 1993, while he was being held in police cells, where the standards of hygiene, sanitation, and medical care were deplorable. Furthermore, despite the fact that on April 16 the Judge of the 11th Criminal Court of Pichincha ordered the director of Santo Domingo Hospital to readmit Mr. Vera Vera for surgery, he was not admitted until April 17, at 13:00 hrs, and no surgery was performed on him until April 22, when he was treated at Eugenio Espejo Hospital in Quito. Therefore, in the 10 days that Mr. Vera Vera was in the custody of the State, various authorities, including correctional staff and medical personnel at state hospitals, committed a series of omissions that resulted in his death on April 23, 1993. IACHR, Application to the I/A Court H.R., Pedro Miguel Vera Vera et al., Case 11.535, Ecuador, February 24, 2010, pars. 1, 21, 32, 45, 46, 47, and 56. 330 IACHR, Report No. 28/96, Case 11.297, Merits, Juan Hernández Lima, October 16, 1996, pars. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 17, 56, 331 ECHR, Case of Tarariyeva v. Russia, Application No. 4353/03, Judgment of 14 December 2006, para. 87. and 60. 332 See: ECHR, Case of Edwards and Others v. United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 417; Case of Tarariyeva v. Russia, Application No. 4353/03 Judgment of December 14, 2006. 333 See: United Nations Human Rights Committee. Lantsova v. Russian Federation (26 March 2002) UN Doc CCPR/C/74/763/1997, para 9.2; Fabrikant v. Canada (6 November 2003) UN Doc CCPR/C/79/D/970/2001) para 9.3; Barbato v. Uruguay (27 November 1982) UN Doc CCPR/C/OP/2 para 10(a). 334 I/A Court H.R., Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, par. 42. Cfr. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, pars 85 and 87; Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 169, par. 88. 335 See: United Nations Human Rights Committee. Fabrikant v. Canada (6 November 2003) UN Doc CCPR/C/79/D/970/2001) para 9.3. See, also, the African human rights system: International PEN and Others v. Nigeria (1998) African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Comm Nos. 137/94, 139/94, 154/86, 161/97 para 112; Malawi African Association and others v. Mauritania (2000) African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Comm Nos. 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164/97 to 196/ 97 and 210/98, para 122. 336 European Court of Human Rights. Case of Price v. United Kingdom (2001) 34 EHRR 53, para 7.