situation they consulted a private physician three days later who indicated that he had a complicated situation with fever; she diagnosed him with septicemic shock and bilateral bronchopneumonia. 124 127. Without prejudice to the considerations made on the lack of informed consent at the moment of performing the procedure, the Commission does not have sufficient information to show that the situation of Mr. Poblete Vilches was the result of inadequate medical care in the context of the first admission to the hospital. 128. Nonetheless, the Commission observes that there are several elements to take into consideration regarding the decision to discharge Mr. Poblete Vilches. 129. The Commission notes first of all that the very seriousness of his diagnosis – which included pneumonia and septic shock, only three days after he was discharged from the hospital – is an indication that Mr. Poblete Vilches should have remained hospitalized. In addition, the Commission notes that the lack of information on the procedure that was performed on Mr. Poblete Vilches could have had a negative impact on the family’s difficulties providing the care he needed after he was discharged from the hospital. The Commission observes that the clinical record does not show that any information was given to Mr. Poblete Vilches’s family members about the care he needed or about his diagnosis and prognosis at the time he was discharged. To the contrary, the family members have recounted that when called they were only asked to pick up Mr. Poblete Vilches and told that they could not have a hospital ambulance for his transfer. The Commission observes, moreover, that, as discussed below, there are indicia of structural deficiencies at the Hospital Sótero del Río in terms of the availability of beds and sufficient infrastructure. This information, together with the serious diagnosis received days later, suggests that the discharge of Mr. Poblete Vilches may have been due to those structural conditions and not to his health needs. 130. The Commission also observes that no explanation was obtained immediately after the death, or in the context of the criminal investigation in the case that would allow one to understand the reasons for Mr. Poblete Vilches’s severe deterioration from the moment he was discharged and for the three days following until his re-admission to the hospital in extremely critical condition. 131. Based on all the above information examined as a whole, the Commission considers that there is a sufficient basis to infer that the decision to discharge Mr. Poblete Vilches and the way in which it was done could have contributed to his rapid deterioration in the days immediately after his exit from the hospital and his subsequent death after being admitted the second time. 2.2.2 With respect to the medical care offered when he was admitted to the hospital the second time 132. The Commission established that on February 5, 2001, after the diagnosis by the private physician who attended to Mr. Poblete Vilches, he was admitted once against to the Hospital Sótero del Río. Mr. Poblete Vilches’s diagnosis was extremely critical upon the second admission, including septic shock and pneumonia, among other organ failures. According to the facts proven, in the section of the medical record on the second admission it is noted that he is a “Patient to ICU for ventilatory support.” In the same section it indicates “No availability currently in medical or surgical ICU. Will be given intermediate care until an ICU bed is available.” This situation of lack of beds in the 124 Annex 6. Criminal complaint filed November 12, 2001 by Blanca Margarita Tapia Encina and Cesia Poblete Tapia before the First Civil Court (attached to the communication from the State of September 23, 2008); Annex 7. Criminal complaint filed by Vinicio Marco Antonio Poblete Tapia on October 7, 2005 before the First Civil Court (attached to the communication from the State of September 23, 2008); Annex 10. Statement by Sandra Zoraida Castillo Momtufar of December 3, 2003 before the First Civil Court (attached to the communication from the State of September 23, 2008); Annex 11. Rp. issued by Sandra Castillo Momtufar on April 2, 2001 (attached to the communication from the State of September 23, 2008); and, Annex 4. Statement by Vinicio Marco Antonio Poblete Tapia of April 6, 2006 before the First Criminal Court (attached to the communication from the State of September 23, 2008). 26