83 Therefore, those two organizations have incurred a number of expenses in their representations before the Commission and the Court.149 VIII Violation of Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention in relation to Articles 19 and 1(1) thereof (RIGHT TO LIFE AND RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT) Pleadings of the Commission 135. The Commission argued the following with reference to the violation of Article 19 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof: a) the State is responsible for violation of Article 19 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, not only in the case of the alleged victims that it has expressly admitted to, but also in the case of all the children interned at the ‘Panchito López’ Center between August 14, 1996 and July 25, 2001, and those who were subsequently transferred to adult prisons; b) Article 19 of the American Convention, taken in combination with the specific rules for the protection of children, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, spells out specific rules in the case of children, such as the principle that deprivation of liberty shall be reserved for exceptional cases; c) the inmates at the Center were not treated in a manner commensurate with their dignity as individuals; the special rules governing deprivation of liberty in the case of children were not observed. The Commission alleged that the inmates were indiscriminately deprived of their liberty and endured subhuman conditions; their court cases were delayed, which meant that the vast majority of the inmates were languishing in prison awaiting trial, in preventive detention; they suffered through three fires in which ten inmates perished because proper safety measures were lacking; the inmates were then transferred to adult prisons, which constitutes a continuous violation of their human rights; adequate reparations have not been made as the State has not taken the measures necessary to correct the overcrowding, filth, poor diet, lack of qualified staff, unsatisfactory educational programs, and the practice of holding children and adolescents in preventive custody for longer than is reasonable; d) the State failed to comply with its obligation under the Convention to provide special protection to the alleged victims; instead, the conditions at the Center also exposed the children and adolescents held there to greater danger, in direct violation of the mandate it is given under the Convention; e) the State failed to guarantee the children’s right to health, as it did not provide regular medical attention to the inmates; it did not have sufficient 149 Cf. Documents submitted to support the expenses CEJIL incurred (file on the merits, volume 8, folios 2296 to 2364); August 14, 1996 complaint that CEJIL and the Tekojojá Foundation filed (case before the Commission); and brief filing the petition of generic habeas corpus dated November 12, 1993 (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 52, folio 614, and file of appendixes to the written brief of pleadings and motions, appendix 39, volume I, folio 240).