67 accordance with the law and to respect the fundamental rights of each individual in As guarantor of this right, the State must prevent those its jurisdiction.”128 situations –such as the current sub judice one- that might lead, by action or omission, to suppression of inviolability of the right to life. In this regard, if a person was detained in good health conditions and subsequently died, the State has the obligation to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of what happened and to disprove accusations regarding its responsibility, through valid evidence,129 because in its role as guarantor the State has the responsibility both of ensuring the rights of the individual under its custody and of providing information and evidence pertaining to what happened to the detainee.130 112. Likewise, the European Court of Human Rights has stated that safeguarding the right to life implicitly requires the existence of an effective form of official investigation when people die as the result of use of force by agents of the State.131 In this regard, it pointed out: [the] general legal prohibition of arbitrary killing by the agents of the State would be ineffective, in practice, if there existed no procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of the use of lethal force by State authorities. The obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2, read in conjunction with the State's general duty [...] to "secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be [an] effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force.132 113. In light of the above, the Court concludes that the State violated, to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez, Article 4(1) in combination with Article 1(1) of the American Convention. XI VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 8 AND 25 IN COMBINATION WITH ARTICLE 1(1) 128 Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 174; and cf. Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 104, para. 69. 129 Eur. Court HR, Timurtas v. Turkey judgment of 13 June 2000, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2000-VI, para. 82; Eur. Court HR, Salman v. Turkey judgment of 27 June 2000, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2000-VII, para. 99; Las Palmeras Case. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 42.b); Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 3, para. 99; Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note 103, para. 55; Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 104, para. 65; Gangaram Panday Case, supra note 104, para. 49; Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 33, para. 141; and Velázquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 33, para. 135. 130 Cf. Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 104, para. 65; Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note 103, para. 55; and Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, paras. 152-153. Likewise, the European Court has extensive case law: Eur. Court HR, Aksoy v. Turkey, supra note 106, para. 61; Eur. Court H.R., Ribitsch v. Austria, supra note 116, para. 34 and Eur. Court H.R., Case of Tomasi v. France, supra note 116, paras. 108-111. 131 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Case of Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom judgment of 4 May 2001, para. 105; Eur. Court H.R., Case of Çiçek v. Turkey judgment of 27 February 2001, para. 148; Eur. Court HR, Mc Cann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, para. 161; Eur. Court H.R., Kaya v. Turkey judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, para. 105. 132 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Case of Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, supra note 131, para. 105; Eur. Court H.R., Case of Çiçek v. Turkey, supra note 131, para. 148; Eur. Court HR, Mc Cann and Others v. the United Kingdom, supra note 131, para. 161; Eur. Court H.R., Kaya v. Turkey, supra note 131, para. 105.