devices or appliances connected to it and a fire started precisely at the only point of access to Cellblock 19, from where it spread rapidly owing to the large quantity of flammable objects, such as curtains, bed linen, and clothes, among other items used by the inmates for their personal needs.11 16. The State says that the forensic medical reports show that none of the deceased died of gunshot wounds and that the spent cartridge cases were found because shots were fired to raise alert in order to ensure that the whole prison population was aware of the fire. As regards the assertion made by the petitioners that the prosecutor’s office “has unilaterally destroyed evidence in the case, the State points out that this was done in accordance with legal procedure established under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Regulations in Decree No. 9-99-E and the Regulations on Handling of Physical or Biological Evidence of a crime.” 12 17. The State also mentions that it does not seek to evade its responsibility to investigate and punish those responsible, either for omissions or direct actions, which is why it initiated a criminal inquiry, in the first stage of which the prosecutor’s office issued a summons for the then-director of the prison. This proceeding did not prosper in spite of the fact that appeals were filed and a writ of amparo was sought against the decision to acquit him. The State notes in this respect that the former prison director took appropriate administrative steps to improve the subhuman conditions in which the inmates lived prior to their death and that he did not receive approval or the necessary assistance to implement the corrective measures that might have averted the blaze. In addition, the State says that his acquittal “does not preclude the accused from being found to bear administrative or civil liability, or other higher level civil servants, who are currently under investigation, being charged with criminal liability.” 18. The State says that enquiries continue in order to ascertain which officials were present when the events occurred, what their obligations and duties were, their seniority, and what they could have done to avert the incident. The State also says that enquiries are underway in order to determine the responsibility, as appropriate, of senior officials in the Bureau of General Prevention Services or any other government official who might have been legally required to take steps to prevent such an incident. In this connection, it considers that domestic remedies to punish those responsible and provide compensation to the victims and their next of kin have not been exhausted, given that investigations are currently underway to determine the responsibility of other officials who, either by deed or omission, are involved in this case. 19. With respect to the delay in the judicial proceeding alleged by the petitioners, the State recognizes that the case has been delayed but that the procedures that arise from such acts are not prompt or simple remedies and that the time taken to complete these processes will probably be counted in years as a considerable amount of time is needed to resolve the merits of the case at trial. The reason for this is that the parties must be given the chance to collect evidence, present it at trial, and contest opposing evidence, in addition to which the tribunal must be afforded the possibility of carefully weighing all of this. 20. The State also says that it has not violated Article 4 of the Convention and, with respect to the supposed violation of Article 5, it says that efforts had been made to correct conditions for prisoners, which stem from the shortage of human and material resources in the country and not from a state policy of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment of persons deprived of liberty. 21. In short, the State requests that the instant petition be declared inadmissible under Article 31(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission because the remedies under domestic jurisdiction have not been exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. IV. 11 12 ANALYSIS Response of the State of February 28, 2007. Response of the State of March 5, 2008. 4