months to reply, in keeping with Article 30(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Rules of Procedure”). The State’s reply was received on February 28, 2007. 6. Furthermore, the IACHR received information from the petitioners on the following dates: April 23, 2007; August 29, 2007; October 2, 2007; and June 13, 2008. Said communications were duly relayed to the State. 7. In addition, the IACHR received comments from the State on the following dates: July 20, 2007; October 5, 2007; and March 5, 2008. Those communications were duly transmitted to the petitioners. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioners 8. In the complaint the petitioners say that on May 17, 2004, at some time between 1:30 a.m. and 2 a.m. a fire broke out in Cellblock 19 at San Pedro Sula Prison, where 183 inmates considered members of the Mara Salvatrucha “MS 13” gang were housed. They add that at 1:55 a.m., the then-director of San Pedro Sula Prison called the Fire Department and the National Police to report the blaze, and that at 2:30 a.m., when the authorities arrived on the scene, the majority had been asphyxiated by the smoke. 3 As a result of the fire, 107 inmates died and 26 sustained burns.4 They say that official reports attributed the cause of the fire to inadequate electrical installation.5In this connection, they say that two months before the blaze the prison director described the electrical system as “collapsed” and warned that there could be a fire. They add that according to the testimony of a number of prisoners, when the fire started, when guards noticed that the inmates were attempting to get out of the Cellblock to escape the fire, they shot at them to prevent them from doing so. 9. The petitioners hold that at the time of the fire, Cellblock 19 was part of the general structure of the prison, isolated from the other cellblocks, poorly ventilated, and regarded as inhuman by the Enforcement Judge of San Pedro Sula. In addition, the petitioners indicate that the the overall situation in the prison was one of overcrowding, violence, unsanitary conditions, indifference on the part of the competent authorities, rampant crime, and structural deficiencies.6 10. As regards the investigation of the incident, they say that on August 11, 2004, the Office of the Attorney General presented a formal indictment against the director of the prison at the time of the fire.7 They add that at a preliminary hearing on September 1, 2004, the case was definitively dismissed. The petitioners mention that the Office of the Attorney General lodged an appeal against the decision, which the Court of Appeals rejected on November 22, 2004. On November 23, 2004, a motion was entered for reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals, but it was found inadmissible on November 25 of that same year. Subsequently, the petitioners say that on December 17, 2004, the Office of the Prosecutor filed for a writ of amparo with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which was refused on September 27, 2005. 3 The petitioners say that of all the inmates who lost their lives, only 10% did so as a result of third- and seconddegree burns, and that 90% died from carbon monoxide poisoning 4 The petitioners note that 104 inmates were killed in the disaster and that another three of the injured died after they were taken to hospital. 5 In this respect, the petitioners cite the Fire Investigation Report of the Honduras Fire Department, Noroccidental Region, and the Electrical System Inspection in Cellblock 19 performed by technical personnel fromEmpresa Nacional de Energía Eléctrica (ENEE). 6 To support this statement, the petitioners cite Judicial Proceeding 1009, Attorney General v. Elías Aceituno Canaca, Enforcement Court Decision of April 21, 2004, p. 1979. 7 According to the petitioners, this criminal indictment is for the crimes of manslaughter to the detriment of Rafael Arturo Pacheco et al., injuries to the detriment of Javier Alejandro Pineda et al., and breach of public duties to the detriment of the public administration. 2