addition, the lack of fire alarm and extinguisher systems also demonstrates the absence of an adequate response plan for emergencies such as the fire on June 30, 2005, which ended the lives of the five youths. 68. On the other hand, the inoperativity of the Center's education program was verified at the date of the events, as well as the failure to comply with the individual readaptation plans. The Commission recalls that the failure of the State to provide education to children and adolescents deprived of their liberty "has even more serious consequences when the children (...) are from marginal sectors of society, as is true in the instant case, because the failure to provide an adequate education limits their chances of actually rejoining society and carrying forward their life plans."148 The Commission considers that this situation constituted a violation of Article 5.6 of the American Convention. 69. It was also indicated that the State did not adequately respond to the fact that the Center lacked adequate facilities to separate the inmates from convicted prisoners, in violation of Article 5.4 of the American Convention and a potential source of violence and tension at the Center. 70. Indeed, there was a situation of arguments and aggression among the young inmates of the Center. This was verified both in relation to the specific situation of the victims of cell No. 4, and in the frequent references throughout the case to situations of violence, fights between inmates, and historical conflict among the various groups of youths in center. The case file does not include the adoption of specific and comprehensive plans aimed at eradicating this situation, despite that fact that it was a source of serious and permanent risk to the life and personal integrity of the adolescents. On the contrary, the aforementioned ongoing situations highlight the indifference on the part of the State towards such risks. 71. The Commission also notes that the INAM-San Félix authorities indicated that the Center was not built in a way that allowed the separation of minors and adults. Although the practice at the Center was to locate inmates over 18 and under 18 years of age in separate cells, the national director of INAM indicated that the lack of adequate facilities "generated a series of ongoing confrontations [among the inmates] that escaped our control." In that sense, in addition to being a violation of Article 5.5 of the American Convention, this situation was an additional factor contributing to conflict at the Center. 72. Finally, the Commission notes the allegations contained in the case file regarding the lack of specialized children’s courts, as well as allegations that the ordinary courts of Bolívar State conducting the criminal trials against minors took decisions in contravention of domestic law for the protection of children. These references from state agents were not contested by the Venezuelan State, and therefore constituted an additional violation of Article 5.5 of the Convention. 73. The Commission considers that the continuity and overlapping of all these elements—wellknown to the competent authorities, both of the center and in the judiciary—contributed to the creation of a situation involving violence, such as the argument between cells No. 2 and No. 4 and the resulting fire in the present case. 74. On the other hand, and in addition to the precarious conditions of the INAM-San Félix in general, the Commission considers that there were also a series of clear signals on the day of the events, alerting the Center's personnel to the imminent violent episode. In this sense, the Center’s personnel knew of the fight between Rafael Parra and "the Boxer" at midday; the aggression of the inmates of the cell no. 7 against the youths in cell No. 4 at visiting time; the aggression of the Center's inmates against Carlos Zabala and José Alberto Lira at the time of their release from the Center; as well as the concern expressed by the relatives of the victims for their safety once visiting hours were over. Given all these elements, the only containment measures taken were assistant Brígida Hurtado’s extended work schedule and the confinement of the inmates of cell No. 4 after visiting hours. The Commission finds that these measures were inadequate to fulfill a protocol or prison policy of violence prevention, and were insufficient to prevent the situation of violence that arose within the prison, leading to the fire. 148 I/A Court H.R., Case of the "Juvenile Reeducation Institute." Judgment of September 2, 2004, para. 174.