49 179. Despite that duty, the Commission finds in the present case that the part performed by the Judge was limited, on one hand, to granting or denying permission for Ms. Chinchilla to leave the prison based on confirmations by the social worker as to whether or not those appointments were genuine and to requesting medical certifications to ascertain if the authorizations requested by Ms. Chinchilla to leave the prison were necessary. And on the other hand, in ruling on the incidental motions for early release, the role adopted by the judge was to decide whether or not Ms. Chinchilla suffered from a terminal illness. Moreover, in the last of the incidental motions, the Judge’s analysis strayed completely from the issue of Ms. Chinchilla’s health and dwelt solely on determining whether or not she had performed "an act of altruism, heroism, or any other humanitarian act" that might warrant granting her the benefit. 180. That the purpose of the medical certifications requested by the Judge was not to exercise his function as a guarantor in accordance with the standards described herein is confirmed with the various pronouncements and decisions by him seeking information as to whether or not "the excessive requests for hospital visits that this inmate is making [were] necessary," or to confirm "if [the appointments requested] were genuine." Furthermore, in disregard of the nature of the illnesses that Ms. Chinchilla suffered from, which could require immediate attention, on one occasion the Judge warned that in future all requests had to be presented "at least eight days in advance" otherwise they would be denied. The Commission notes that only once, in 2003, did the Judge order that Ms. Chinchilla receive treatment for her "symptoms" without following up further on the matter. 181. With respect to the incidental motions for early release, the Judge received information about the series of failings in the treatment that Ms. Chinchilla received as well as with regard to the abovedescribed absence of requisite conditions. However, in the first three incidental motions, the judge merely pronounced on whether or not Ms. Chinchilla had a terminal illness. Despite the fact that the Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals took up the appeal against the decision on the third incidental motion on enforcement of sentences, it fails to remedy the lack of judicial protection for her right to life and humane treatment when it denied the appeal solely on the basis that all the statements agreed that it was not known when death might occur and, therefore, "for the time being she [was] not in imminent danger of dying." 182. Finally, as regards the fourth incidental motion filed, the Commission notes that the Judge applied Article 7 (c) of the Remission of Sentences Decree, which states that one of the powers of the president of the judiciary is to agree on special remissions for acts of altruism, heroism, or any other humanitarian act. However, he neglected to pronounce on Ms. Chinchilla’s state of health, simply saying that the “the convict in question" had to remain in prison even though she had a disease that "ma[de] it even more complicated" for her to stay. The Judge clearly stated that the main point of this remedy was not to afford a person the possibility to die with dignity but to reward heroic acts. In that regard, both the norm and its application were focused on interests that ignored the need to protect the life and wellbeing of persons deprived of their liberty. 183. In light of the foregoing and the absence of an explanation from the State of Guatemala, the Commission notes that, aside from the communications that Ms. Chinchilla sent to the Judge of the Second Criminal Enforcement Court, there was no formal remedy that Ms. Chinchilla could access in order to denounce the harm to her health resulting from the lack of adequate treatment, to satisfy her need to be provided with conditions compatible with her dignity, and for the judge to protect her rights. Ms. Chinchilla invoked the only available remedy: incidental motions for remission of sentences. As a result, the criminal enforcement judge was regularly made aware of her state of health, the treatment failings, and the exacerbation of her illnesses. However, despite the foregoing, he failed to provide effective judicial protection for her rights to live with dignity and have her integrity respected, in violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 thereof. 4.2 The inquiry into Ms. Chinchilla’s death 184. The Court has held that when it comes to the investigation of the death of a person who was in State custody, as in this case, the relevant authorities "have a duty to initiate ex officio and without delay, a