7. They alleged the responsibility of officials who worked in the prison on the day of the events and who did not provide the keys to the cell in time for these deaths. They also alleged the responsibility of the fire department, which arrived without the necessary equipment to enter the area and assist the alleged victims. They also alleged that José Gregorio Mota had a chest wound evidencing an act of violence against him before the fire. 8. They indicated that the events of the case occurred in a generalized context of human rights violations in Venezuela and of the State’s inability to establish adequate policies to guarantee the rights of detainees in detention centers, including measures regarding “structure and emergency planning.” 9. They alleged the violation of the right to life, because the INAM officials that day failed to adopt the necessary measures to safeguard the lives of the deceased while in state custody. They also alleged the violation of the right to personal integrity, in view of the suffering of the deceased before their deaths. 10. They indicated that despite the fact that on the day of the fire the alleged victims had reached 18 years of age, they must be considered "minors" under international law, because they were tried and sentenced under the Organic Law for the Protection of Children and the Adolescents (LOPNA), and because they were deprived of their liberty in a juvenile detention center in accordance with this law. Therefore, they alleged violations of the rights of the child, taking into account the applicable international corpus juris. They also alleged the violation of the right to personal integrity to the detriment of the deceased’s next-of-kin. 11. On the other hand, they alleged a violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, because although the investigation began on the same day as the events, the “conclusive act” of the investigation needed to begin the trial stage was not presented until 2008. Similarly, they alleged several violations of the duty of due diligence having serious implications for a possible clarification and sanctioning of the events. They also highlighted the delays caused by dozens of adjournments of the preliminary hearing. B. THE STATE 12. The State did not present observations at the merits stage, and therefore this section is based on the arguments made during the admissibility stage that are related to the merits. In this sense, from its position at that stage it is clear that the State would deny its international responsibility arguing that it did not fail in its duty of prevention. 13. The State argued that it was not negligent in creating the circumstances that led to the death of the alleged victims. It argued that "it can not be said that the [State] had breached [the obligation to guarantee the right to life and personal integrity of persons deprived of liberty], based exclusively on a case that occurred in a given period, without examining the actions deployed by the State to prevent it," and that in fact "there is a tangible demonstration of the actions taken to prevent these events from occurring." It specified, with regard to the alleged widespread situation of violations against the prison population, that "the duty to prevent is [...] an obligation of means or behavior and not of results. It is not violated only by the production of a unsatisfactory result." The State cited a decrease in the rates of prison violence in 2008, in comparison with previous years, due, in its view, to "the effectiveness of humanization plans and strategies" in prisons. 14. The State also denied responsibility for violations of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, since an investigation into the events was still under the jurisdiction of the Public Prosecutor. It argued that it is not for the IACHR "to consider the guilt and participation of individuals in punishable offenses, still more when the participation of State officials in the terrible deaths of these citizens has not been established." 15. It reported that on September 29, 2009, the Public Prosecutor's Office filed an indictment against Nerio Romero Martínez, José Luis Chirinos and Francisco Gómez Corrales—individuals in charge of the Center on the day of the events—for the alleged commission of culpable homicide. It alleged that this shows the State does not intend to "stop guaranteeing the remedies owed to the victims."