75. In addition, and with respect to the specific moment of the fire, the eyewitness accounts indicated at various points that the three individuals in charge of the Center—Nerio Romero, José Luis Chirinos and Francisco Gómez—delayed or failed to act with due diligence to release the youths in cell No. 4 and extinguish the fire therein. In this sense, the account shows that when the fire started, guides Gomez and Chirinos did not have the keys to cell No. 4, because one of them had thrown them towards the entrance of the Center. In addition, and by his own account, Chirinos delayed arriving at the cell for at least three minutes, and possibly for up to five minutes, from the moment in which heard the screams of the victims and became aware of the fire; from the information available, it is obvious that the distance between the cells did not justify such a delay. Such impossibility was not alleged by the State nor could be verified through judicial reconstruction of the events due to the delay, to be analyzed later. According to his own account, acting warden Romero took another three minutes to reach cell No. 4 after being notified of the situation by guide Chirinos. He delayed in opening the bars of the cell due to the heat of the fire and, according to Carlos Martes, because he was nervous. The Commission considers that this delay of six minutes or more in responding to the outbreak of the fire no doubt had an impact on the lethality of the incident. 76. On the other hand, the Commission considers that the first firefighters’ lack of adequate equipment and material to extinguish the fire and their failure to enter the cell to effectively assist the victims, also constituted an omission attributable to the State. 77. Due to all the above elements taken together, the Commission considers that the Venezuelan State failed to comply with its duty of prevention in this case, and therefore is responsible for the violation of the right to life and personal integrity—in view of the suffering that a death due to asphyxia, suffocation and burns implies149—to the detriment of the five deceased victims. 78. Furthermore, considering the fact that the majority of the structural problems allowing the death of the victims while under 18 years of age constituted continuous and repeated omissions, the Commission also considers that the State "did not effectively fulfill its role as guarantor of the rights of the child, in this special relationship of subordination between the State and the adult/child deprived of liberty. The State failed to take the necessary positive measures to ensure to all inmates decent living conditions. It also failed to take the special measures of protection that are required of it where children are concerned.”150 In addition, although the victims of these events had already reached the age of 18 on the day of the fire, the Commission considers it sufficiently established that the circumstances leading to their deaths were the result of a lack of special and sufficient protection measures to guarantee the life, personal integrity and conditions of dignity in favor of all adolescent internees of the INAM-San Félix center for children under 18 years of age. In all, the responsibility of the State is based on the lack of preventive measures against the possibility of acts of violence within the Center as a consequence of the ongoing situations also attributable to the State; as well as the negligence of the personnel of the Center and of the Fire Department in their actions to extinguish the fire and save the lives of the victims. 151 79. The Commission concludes that the Venezuelan State is responsible for the violation of the rights to life and personal integrity established in Articles 4.1, 5.1, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 19 of the same instrument, to the detriment of José Gregorio Mota Abarullo, Gabriel de Jesus Yáñez Sánchez, Rafael Antonio Parra Herrera, Cristián Arnaldo Molina Córdova and Johan José Correa. See IACHR. Report No. 118/10. Case 12.680. Merits. Pacheco Teruel et al. (Honduras). October 22, 2010, para. 81. I/A Court H.R., Case of the "Juvenile Reeducation Institute." Judgment of September 2, 2004, para. 176 151 See also, in this sense, I/A Court H.R., Case of the "Juvenile Reeducation Institute." Judgment of September 2, 2004, para. 187; I/A Court H.R., Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. Judgment of April 27, 2012, para. 69. 149 150