50 American Convention. The results of the aforementioned investigations must be made known publicly, for Argentinean society to know the truth about the facts (supra 96). B) GUARANTEES OF NON-RECIDIVISM OF INJURIOUS ACTS 122. Pursuant to the requests by the parties, specifically the second clause of the agreement they signed, this Court will state some considerations regarding the conditions of detention of children and, specifically, imprisonment of children. 123. It is appropriate to mention that: […] THE GOVERNMENT, THE COMMISSION AND THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FAMILY, ask[ed] the Honorable Inter-American Court of Human Rights to rule on the matters of law discussed in this case, regarding application of Article 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights; in the framework of the conclusions of the Honorable Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its Advisory Opinion Nº 17. […] 124. As has been pointed out previously, the Court recognizes the existence of the authority, and even the obligation, of the State to “guarantee its security and to maintain public order.”77 Nevertheless, the power of the State in this matter is not unlimited; its actions are subject to respect for the fundamental rights of individuals under its jurisdiction and observance of procedures according to the Law.78 125. With respect to the power of the State to detain persons under its jurisdiction, this Court has pointed out, analyzing Article 7 of the American Convention, that there are material and formal requirements that must be observed in applying a measure or punishment that involves imprisonment: no one may be imprisoned for causes, cases or circumstances other than those defined by law (material aspect), but, also, strictly subject to procedures objectively defined in the law (formal aspect).79 126. Detainees “have the right to live in conditions of detention that are compatible with their personal dignity and the State must guarantee the right to life and to humane treatment.”80 The Court has determined that the State, being responsible for detention centers, is the guarantor of these rights of the detainees, which involves, among other things, the obligation to explain what happens to persons who are 77 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 4, para. 86; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 5, para. 101; and Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 30, para. 174; and Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 30, para. 69. Vid., likewise, El Caracazo Case, supra note 3, para. 127. 78 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 4, para. 86; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 5, para. 101; and Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 30, para. 174. Likewise, Cf., Eur. Court H.R., Ribitsch v. Austria. Judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A No. 336, para. 38; and Eur. Court H.R., Tomasi v. France. Judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A No. 214-A, para. 115. 79 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 4, para. 78; Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 30, para. 139; and Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 30, para. 85. 80 Cf., Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note 30, para. 87; Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 30, para. 78; and Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, supra note 30, para. 195.