treatment required hospitalization. As a result, the petitioners allege, the lack of proper medical care derived in cruel and inhuman punishment of Mrs. Chinchilla, and the severity of that punishment grew as it continued over time, constituting torture. 13.With regard to the circumstances of her death, the petitioners state that on May 25, 2004, Mrs. Chinchilla left her cell on her wheelchair and subsequently fell. Inmates, who became aware that she had fallen, came to her aid, took her to the director’s office and asked for the chief of medical care of the correctional system, who did not come until after Mrs. Chinchilla had died. The petitioners point out that a nurse at the institution provided first aid to the alleged victim, and it was the nurse who confirmed that Mrs. Chinchilla’s blood pressure was very high and who said that she should be taken to a hospital, a procedure that, according to the petitioners, was, allegedly, not authorized. The petitioners state that in the three hours that elapsed between the moment Mrs. Chinchilla fell from the wheelchair and the time of her death, the alleged victim did not receive proper medical care; that she was in agony, exhibiting respiratory problems and problems related to her sugar level; and that she was expelling saliva from her mouth. 14.In sum, the petitioners contend that both, the extremely poor medical care the alleged victim received during the years she was incarcerated, evidenced by the absence of adequate diet and medication, and, consequently, the worsening of her illness, as well as the negligence displayed by the authorities in not providing her with proper and immediate medical care on the day she fell, led to her death as a result of a diabetic coma. The petitioners point out that there is no agreement in the official reports, given that the autopsy reveals that Mrs. Chinchilla died as a result of a pulmonary edema and hemorrhagic pancreatitis, but, the legal certificate authorizing the removal of the corpse indicates that the cause of death could have been myocardial infarction and diabetes mellitus type II. The petitioners also indicate that the Public Ministry determined that the facts did not constitute a crime and, therefore, requested that the case be closed. 15.Therefore, the petitioners conclude, the facts denounced in the complaint violate Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention. Furthermore, the petitioners assert that the failure to provide proper medical care falls within the provisions of Article 419 of the Criminal Code of Guatemala 1 and, at the same time, the petitioners add, those omissions constitute a violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of Guatemala 2 and of Article 5 of the American Convention. The petitioners allege that, in this case, there is a violation of the right to life, classified in domestic legislation as manslaughter, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 127 and 421 of the Criminal Code. With regard to this fact, the petitioners point out that the investigation that was carried out by the Prosecutors Office met neither the seriousness nor the exhaustiveness required by Article 1(1) of the American Convention because not even minimal efforts were made to try to determine the level of responsibility of the correctional staff bore in the death of the alleged victim; and, thus, the closing of the case exhausted the domestic remedies. In fact, the petitioners contend, in this case, the Public Ministry only tried to ascertain whether Mrs. Chinchilla’s body showed any evidence of violence or foul play, without trying to determine whether the death was the result of medical negligence, which was fully documented, considering her physical condition and the lack of proper care which the State was obligated to provide. 16.With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioners allege that the death of Mrs. Chinchilla inside a correctional institution constituted a crime against the public order that should have been prosecuted by initiative of the Prosecutors Office itself. With regard to the State’s allegations that there was no request for an investigation lodged under the provisions of Article 116 of the Criminal Code, which establishes that the aggrieved party may motivate the criminal prosecution or join the prosecution already initiated by the Public Ministry, the 1 The petitioners cite Article 419 of the Criminal Code of Guatemala which establishes: The civil servant or civil service employee who omits, refuses to carry out, or delays any action that falls within the scope of its responsibilities or position, shall be punished with one to three years in prison. 2 Article 19.- Penitentiary system. The penitentiary system must aim for the social readaptation and the reeducation of the inmates and to provide care for them that meets the following minimum standards […] 3