as well as by the staff working in the diagnostic center. It should be noted that [the accused] acted negligently by not responding to the request for help from [the victims] and did not immediately open the door giving access to the cell where [the victims] were being held. 124 57. The Commission does not have the date on which the closure of the investigation was ordered. However, there is evidence that the accused’s’ trial hearing was deferred at least six times between June 2010 and January 2015;125 the petitioners alleged that there have been adjournments on no less than 32 occasions since 2008. 126 Of the adjournments ordered in 2014 and 2015, there is evidence that three of them were due to the defense’s non-appearance; one by default of the Public Ministry; and one because "the necessary steps were not taken."127 IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. The rights to life128 and personal integrity129 in relation to articles 1.1130 and 19131 of the American Convention 1. The special position of guarantor of the State vis-a-vis persons deprived of liberty and burden of proof 58. The case-law of the Inter-American system has established that in regard to persons deprived of liberty, the State assumes a special position as guarantor of their rights, since the deprivation of liberty "produces a special relationship and interaction of subordination between the person deprived of his liberty and the State, characterized by the particular intensity with which the State can regulate their rights and obligations and by the circumstances of confinement, where the inmate is prevented from satisfying, on his own, certain basic needs that are essential if one is to live a dignified life."132 In such circumstances, "[t]he way a detainee is treated must be subject to the closest scrutiny, taking into account the detainee’s vulnerability."133 59. Therefore, "whenever a individual is deprived of liberty in normal health and subsequently displays health problems, the State must provide a satisfactory and credible explanation for this situation and disprove the allegations of its responsibility with adequate probative elements."134 Accordingly, the absence of a satisfactory explanation leads to a presumption of state responsibility for the injuries of a person who has Annex 68. Formal Charges and Request for Indictment (29.9.2008). Annex 62 to the additional brief. See Annex 69. Order for Adjournment (9.6.2010) and Annex 70. Court Decision (9.6.2010). Annexes to the petitioners’ admissibility brief; Annex 71. Five Adjournment Decisions of Public and Oral Trial of 2014-2015. Annex 64 to the additional brief. 126 Brief on Merits of the petitioners. 127 Annex 71. Five Adjournment Decisions of Public and Oral Trial of 2014-2015. Annex 64 to the additional brief. 128 Article 4 establishes: 1. “Every person has the right to have his life respected. [..]. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life”. 129 Article 5 establishes, in relevant part: “1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. […] 4. Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons, and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons. 5. Minors while subject to criminal proceedings shall be separated from adults and brought before specialized tribunals, as speedily as possible, so that they may be treated in accordance with their status as minors. 6. Punishments consisting of deprivation of liberty shall have as an essential aim the reform and social readaptation of the prisoners”. 130 Article 1.1 establishes, in relevant part: 1. “The States Parties [...] undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination [...]”. 131 Article 19 establishes: “Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the state.” 132 I/A Court H.R., Case of the "Juvenile Reeducation Institute" v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 2, 2004, para. 152; Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Judgment of May 14, 2013, para. 188 (see also Case of Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago. Judgment of March 11, 2005, para. 97; Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Judgment of 20 June, 2005, para. 118). In this sense, the Commission established two decades ago that: “When it detains an individual, the State introduces that individual into a "total institution"--such as a prison--where the various aspects of his life are subject to an established regimen; where the prisoner is removed from his natural and social milieu; where the established regimen is one of absolute control, a loss of privacy, limitation of living space and, above all, a radical decline in the individual's means of defending himself. All this means that the act of imprisonment carries with it a specific and material commitment to protect the prisoner's human dignity so long as that individual is in the custody of the State, which includes protecting him from possible circumstances that could imperil his life, health and personal integrity, among other rights.” IACHR, Report No. 41/99, Merits, Minors in Detention (Honduras), March 10, 1999. Para. 135. 133 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003, para. 126. 134 I/A Court H.R., Case of Mendoza v. Argentina. Judgment of May 14, 2013, para. 203 (citing cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, paras. 100, 111, and Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti, para. 77). 124 125