threats and proper equipment to react to emergencies [and] train prison personnel in evacuation procedures, first aid and how to respond to events of this type."144 In this sense, the State must incorporate in the design, structure, construction, improvements, maintenance, and operation of the detention centers, all the material mechanisms that minimize the risk of emergencies or fires occurring and, in the event that they do occur, can be dealt with with due diligence, guaranteeing the protection of the inmates or a safe evacuation of the premises. Among these mechanisms are effective systems for the detection and extinguishing of fires, fire alarms, as well as action protocols in cases of emergencies that guarantee the safety of inmates. 145 64. On the other hand, the Inter-American Court has incorporated into its jurisprudence a series of standards for prison conditions and the duty of prevention, to be taken into account when analyzing international obligations under the American Convention regarding persons deprived of their liberty. The following are particularly relevant to this case: a. b. f. h. k. overcrowding is, in itself, a violation of personal integrity; in addition, it hinders the normal execution of essential functions in prisons; those who are being processed must be separated from those who have been convicted; and children must be held separately from adults, so that those deprived of liberty receive treatment appropriate to their situation; [...] education, work and recreation are essential functions of a prison, and must be provided to all those deprived of liberty in order to promote the rehabilitation and social adjustment of inmates; [...] all cells must have sufficient natural or artificial light, ventilation and adequate conditions of hygiene; [...] Disciplinary measures that constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, including corporal punishment, prolonged solitary confinement, and any other measure that may seriously jeopardize the physical or mental health of the inmate is strictly prohibited. 146 65. Regarding the design for penitentiary prevention policies, the Commission has considered that the State’s exercise of its role as guarantor "is a complex one in which the areas of competence of various state institutions converge. From the executive and legislative bodies [...], to mid-level institutions charged with running prisons, and the appointed authorities at the prisons [...]. Likewise, the work carried out by the judicial branch is relevant, [...] which monitors the lawfulness of detention and the conditions under which detainees are held. 147 3. Analysis of the case 66. As a preliminary matter, the Commission observes that there is a presumption of State responsibility for the deaths of the five youths in their custody, uncontroverted in this case, since the State has not provided a "satisfactory explanation" about the deaths, as will be analyzed later in the corresponding section to the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission identifies a series of additional factors relevant to the analysis of the State's responsibility in this case, specifically with respect to the duty of prevention. 67. First, a series of elements reveal the lack of a prison policy for the prevention of emergencies in INAM-San Félix, reflected in the living conditions within the Center at the time of the events. In the previous chapter, the Commission determined that for years, INAM-San Félix suffered from overcrowding, with a lack of sufficient personnel to provide minimum security conditions, both as regards effective control to prevent the entry of contraband into the Center, as well as the lack of adequate personnel to control a population that varied between 50 and 105 inmates. Likewise, serious deficiencies were found in the infrastructure of the Center, mainly the lack of sufficient electric light that resulted in adolescents improvising wiring in their cells. In IACHR. Report No. 118/10. Case 12.680. Merits. Pacheco Teruel et al. (Honduras). October 22, 2010, para. 63. I/A Court H.R., Pacheco Teruel et al. Judgment of April 22, 2012, para. 64. 146 I/A Court H.R., Pacheco Teruel et al. Judgment of April 22, 2012, para. 77 (footnotes omitted). 147 IACHR. Report No. 118/10. Case 12.680. Merits. Pacheco Teruel et al. (Honduras). October 22, 2010, para. 65. 144 145