been in the custody of state agents. 135 In addition, the State's guarantor status with respect to the right to life and personal integrity obliges it to prevent situations that could lead, by action or omission, to an impact on the person under its custody.136 60. In addition to the above, "[i]n matters of the right to life, when the State is dealing with children deprived of their liberty", as in the present case, given that it took place in a center for adolescents and that the alleged victims were admitted to the center when they were under 18 years of age, the State must "assume its special position of guarantor with greater care and responsibility, and must take special measures based on the principle of the best interests of the child.” 137 2. General considerations relating to prison conditions 61. As a guarantor of the rights of persons deprived of liberty, the State must assume a specific series of responsibilities and take special initiatives to guarantee that inmates have the necessary conditions to lead a decent life and contribute to the effective enjoyment of those rights that under no circumstances can be restricted or whose restriction does not necessarily derive from the deprivation of liberty,138 such as the right to life and personal integrity. Protecting the lives of children deprived of their liberty entails broader obligations: "it requires the State to be particularly attentive to that child’s living conditions while deprived of his or her liberty.”139 In this sense, the State has the obligation to provide them with health care and education, to ensure that detention will not destroy their life plans. 140 Likewise, the Court has considered, in line with the United Nations, that children deprived of their liberty "will receive care, protection and all necessary assistance - social, educational, vocational, psychological, medical and physical - that they may require because of their age, sex and personality and in the interests of their healthy development".141 All these would be, therefore, conditions that should be guaranteed within adolescent centers such as the INAM-San Félix. 62. In order to fulfill its duty of prevention with respect to possible violations of the rights to life and to personal integrity, the State "must design and enforce prison policies intended to prevent crisis situations." 142 Among others, the Inter-American Court has considered that "the State [has] the duty to create the conditions to avoid, to the maximum extent possible, fighting among inmates".143 63. In addition, the Commission has considered that the State must "[adopt] concrete measures to prevent and react to emergencies like fires [...] ensuring that prisons have early warning systems to detect I/A Court H.R., Case of Mendoza v. Argentina. Judgment of May 14, 2013, para. 203 (citing cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, paras. 95, 170, and Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti, para. 77). 136 Id. at para. 191. 137 I/A Court H.R. Case of Servellón García and others v. Honduras. Judgment of September 21, 2006, para. 116. 138 I/A Court H.R., Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of April 27, 2012, para. 64 (citing c.f. Case of the "Juvenile Reeducation Institute" v. Paraguay, para. 153). 139 I/A Court H.R., Case of the "Juvenile Reeducation Institute." Judgment of September 2, 2004, para. 160. This, given that “Articles 6 and 27 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child include in the right to life the obligation of State to ensure ‘the maximum degree possible of survival and development of the child.’” Id., para. 161. 140 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute.” Judgment of September 2, 2004, para. 161. See also UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, Rule 13 (“Juveniles deprived of their liberty shall not for any reason related to their status be denied the civil, economic, political, social or cultural rights to which they are entitled under national or international law, and which are compatible with the deprivation of liberty”). 141 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute.” Judgment of September 2, 2004, para. 163. (citing UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules)). 142 IACHR. Report No. 118/10. Case 12.680. Merits. Pacheco Teruel et al. (Deaths in Fire at San Pedro Sula Prison) (Honduras). October 22, 2010, para. 64; I/A Court H.R., Matter of Urso Branco Prison regarding Brazil. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 22, 2004, considering no. 11; I/A Court H.R., Case of the "Juvenile Reeducation Institute.” Judgment of September 2, 2004, para. 178; Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center ("La Pica") regarding Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 13, 2006, consideration 15; Matter of Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center regarding Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, consideration 18; Matter of the persons imprisoned in the "Dr. Sebastião Martins Silveira" Penitentiary in Araraquara, São Paulo regarding Brazil. Provisional Measures. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 28, 2006, consideration 18. 143 I/A Court H.R., Case of the "Juvenile Reeducation Institute." Judgment of September 2, 2004, para. 184; see also Matter of Judicial Penitentiary of Ciudad Bolívar "Vista Hermosa Prison" regarding Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 15, 2011. 135