American Convention, contained in Article 2 thereof, and therefore it is not pertinent to rule on this matter. 255. In conclusion, the decisions taken by the enforcement court do not appear to have been duly justified, particularly in terms of assessing or weighing the elements related to the nature and risks posed by the disease or disability of the alleged victim, and the proper treatment due. The enforcement judge did not adopt other measures to verify the information presented to him, or enable the medical experts to discuss their concerns in situ, and did not refer to the difficulties faced by the alleged victim as a result of her disability. Thus, beyond the formal opportunities afforded by the incidental motions filed by Mrs. Chinchilla before the Second Criminal Enforcement Court, the remedies attempted before that judicial body were not effective to address her complaints regarding the obvious and proven progressive deterioration in her health and the need to ensure that her conditions of detention were compatible with her dignity, since the judge did not order any corrective measures for a comprehensive solution to her situation, or ensure that these did not translate into even harsher conditions, with greater physical or psychological suffering, which could endanger her life or personal integrity. 256. For the foregoing reasons, the Court considers that the State failed in its obligation to guarantee adequate access to justice in relation to the rights to personal integrity and to life, in terms of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mrs. María Inés Chinchilla Sandoval. B.2) The State’s obligation to investigate the facts 257. The Court has reiterated that the State has a legal duty to take “reasonable steps to prevent human rights violations and to use the means at its disposal to carry out a serious investigation of violations committed within its jurisdiction, to identify those responsible, [as applicable] to impose the appropriate punishment and to ensure the victim adequate reparation.”351 In particular, as an obligation that is a fundamental and determining element for the protection of the right to life,352 the Court has established that, when investigating the death of a person who was in the State’s custody, the relevant authorities have the duty to initiate ex officio and without delay, a thorough, independent, impartial and effective investigation.353 This must be carried out with due diligence,354 using “all available legal means and be aimed at determining the truth.”355 The investigation should be conducted by the State as a legal duty, in a serious manner, and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective, or as an action undertaken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victims Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 174, and Case García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 98. 351 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 88 and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 17, 2015. Series C No. 292, para. 348. 352 Cf. Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 87; and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, supra, para. 162. 353 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 83, and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 217. 354 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, supra, para. 162. 355 82