53. This opinion was reiterated in the case of ,514 LMAN v. TURKEY (application no. 21986/93) JIIDGMENT 27 June 2000, where the European Court held that: "in the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2 (which is in pari materia with Article 4 of the African Charter), the Court must subject deprivations of ltfe to the most careful scrutiny, tatking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances. Persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and the authorities are under a duty to protect theru. Consequently, where an individual is taken into police custody in good health and is found to be injured on release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation ofhow those tnjuries were caused. The obligation on the authorities to account for the treatment of an individual in custody particularly stringent where that individual dies- 54. " It follows from the above decisions that State officials are under a duty to protect persons within their control in detention, where such persons die whilst in custody, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of the cause of death. 55. The Respondent has failed to provide further evidence with regard to this case to substantiate its claims. F.ven though the autopsy report annexed is of critical importance, the report alone which was conducted two years after the death of the deceased is not enough to ascertain the facts leading to his death. s6. Flowing from the foregoing, the Court holds that the Respondent has not accounted for the circumstances leading to the death of the Applicants' brother. Consequently, thg Court finds a violation the deceased's right to life, 16 M i!"*^ @v\