him with some type of assistance. They also recounted that they asked the military agents to immediately transfer him to a medical center because he was still alive. Both Vidal Trueba and Jorge Jiménez testified that despite their request, the military men refused to transfer him to the medical facility. 95. This is consistent with the statements of the doctor at the Baborigame clinic, Efrén Royval, who stated that at 1:50 a.m., in other words, forty minutes after the incidents occurred, he received Captain Raúl Ruiz Gómez, who recounted to him what had transpired. Doctor Royval claimed that after another thirty minutes, at approximately 2:20 a.m., four military men arrived along with Vidal Trueba and Jorge Jiménez. He also noted that after waiting another 40 to 50 minutes, in other words, at around 3:00 a.m., he went to the clinic of the ejido and the body of Mr. Trueba had just arrived, and was lifeless. 96. The IACHR confirmed that Mr. Trueba was taken to the clinic of the ejido of Baborigame almost two hours after being wounded. The Commission notes that even though we do not know the exact distance between that clinic and the scene of the crime, the State did not provide any explanation for this delay. On the contrary, over the course of the proceedings before the IACHR, the Mexican State only noted that Mr. Trueba was taken by ambulance to the clinic and passed away prior to arriving there, but did not account for what happened during the two hours in question. 97. The Commission believes that the simple fact of being wounded for that length of time before his death, means Mirey Trueba endured extreme physical suffering, which is inconsistent with respect for humane treatment and personal integrity and is attributable to the Mexican State. Additionally, the Commission concludes that, through its agents, despite the seriousness of the situation, the State did not provide an immediate response in order to find medical assistance as quickly as possible. Consequently, the Commission finds that the State violated the right to life and humane treatment, as established in Article 4.1 and 5.1 of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations set forth in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mirey Trueba. This is also because of the suffering that he had to endure between the time he was shot and his death, as well as the failure of the State to seek immediate medical assistance. 98. The Commission finds that this conclusion is not changed by the fact that Dr. Royval testified that due to the type of wound that Mr. Trueba had, it was possible to assert that he bled to death in five minutes. In this regard, the a posteriori decision of whether or not medical assistance could have saved the life of Mirey Trueba, in light of the nature of his wounds, cannot exonerate the Mexican State of its responsibility due to the unjustified delay in transferring Mirey Trueba to the medical facility, when he was seriously wounded. B. Right to a fair trial and judicial protection (articles 8.199 and 25.1100 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument) 99. In cases of violent deaths, the Inter-American Court has held that States are obligated under Article 8 (fair trial) and Article 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention to conduct an ex officio, prompt, serious, impartial and effective investigation, as an essential element and requirement for the protection of the rights affected in such situations.101 In light of Article 1.1 of the American Convention, this duty obliges the State to provide a prompt and simple recourse so that, inter alia, those responsible for 99 Article 8.1 of the American Convention: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previous established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal or any other nature. 100 Article 25 of the American Convention: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 101 196, par. 75. IA Court of HR. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 18