t_ result of malignant hypertension and severe hypertensive cardiovascular disease. 59. In addition to the above, the Court notes that by a letter dated 20 September ' 2016, the Chief Medical Director of National Hospit:alnotified the Chairman of EFCC on the need to expeditiously conduct an autopsy on the deceased as any funher delay may affect the result of the examination. The Court notes the following excerpts contained in the leffer: *In the cause of the meetings, the NHA Pathologist discussed the tikely consequences of extending the period fo, autopsy/forensic analysis. The NHA pathologist advised the fomily that conclude arrangements .a 60. - u - delqt mqv qf ffirts should be rnade to for the autopsy and toxicologt analysis since 'the result q'the toxicoloy". The Respondent having been informed of the implication of delaying the autopsy examination, took two (2) years to order the conduct of an autopsy on the deceased who died in its custody. The post mortem examination should have been conducted immediately after his death or within a reasonable time thereafter followed by a diligent preliminary investigation. Anything falling short of this standard for any reason whatsoever, flaws the entire process. More to this is the factthatthe human life is involved. The inviolabilrty of the right to life cannot be overstated. , 6t. The Respondent argued that when the incident occurred, the matter was immediately reported to the Nigerian Police Force Homicide Section for investigation and the Police Force Criminal Investigation Department (FCID) conducted an independent and effective investigation into the matter. This assertion was not substantiated with any evidence. 18