6 direct and inescapable nature of this duty in the case of those subject, in the most intense and complete manner, de jure and de facto, to the powers of public authorities exercising custody of those persons or control of their specific situation (a concrete duty of care in both cases) even when they are entrusted to a third party. 23. As establishments and as systems, prisons and detention and “treatment” institutions for minors fit within the category of “total institutions,” where existence is subject to a meticulous and comprehensive regime. The area of freedom is drastically reduced in the hands of the State in charge of the institution and, therefore, this applies to the lives of those who are “institutionalized.” Therefore, the State, whose field of authority grows extraordinarily, must take upon itself the responsibility for the consequences of said authority. By virtue of the above, it must answer for many things that would normally be under the responsibility of the interested person, as the master of his or her own behavior. For this reason, the State has an extraordinary “duty of care,” which would not exist under other circumstances. 24. Thus, the State is the guarantor of the life, humane treatment and health, among other legally protected interests and rights of the detainees. Restrictions involved in the detention must not go beyond what is inherent to it, pursuant to its nature. In my separate concurring Opinion in the Hilaire, Constantine, Benjamin et al. vs. Trinidad and Tobago Case, June 21, 2002 Judgment, I stated that the role of guarantor entails: “a) avoiding all that which may inflict further suffering on the subject than is strictly necessary for the purposes of the detention or the fulfillment of the sentence, on the one hand, and b) providing all that is relevant - pursuant to the applicable law - to meet the aim of the imprisonment: security and social readaptation, regularly, on the other.” 25. There is, therefore, a precise boundary between the legitimate action of the State and illegitimate behavior of its agents. The State must inform, explain and justify, in each specific case, the reduction of the rights of a person, and of course the very loss of his or her legally protected interests, especially the right to life, if this occurs while the State is exercising its role as guarantor, whether the injurious effect is the consequence of an active conduct –or this involves, in and of itself, a violation of international provisions-, or it is the result of an omissive behavior, which is the relevant hypothetical situation, under the penal regime, with respect to committing by omission. In any event, it would constitute an anomalous, undue or illegal action during performance of public functions, entailing the respective demand for accountability of those incurring in it: responsibility of the State and responsibility of the individuals. That of the latter must be required in accordance with the duties of criminal justice that constitute, as I have mentioned several times, a specific case within the broader class of reparations. 26. The instant Judgment mentions an important issue that procedural doctrine has debated at length: abuse of procedural rights, as it has been called, or procedural abuse, an issue that is in turn related to the principle of good faith and integrity, which should govern the proceeding. In this regard, the Judgment includes various expressions pertaining to abuse of rights in the instant case by the defense counsel, an attitude that was not rejected in a timely and appropriate manner by certain courts, which led to extraordinary delays in the proceeding. Thus, it was not possible for the proceeding to move forward to its natural culmination, and this gave way to a claim regarding extinguishment of the criminal action, a matter I will refer to below (para. 29).