IV. ANALYSIS OF LAW A. Prior considerations 57. The Commission observes that at the merits stage, both the petitioners and the State referred to the inmates injured during the facts of this case. The IACHR deems it admissible to analyze potential violations of the rights of these alleged direct victims at this stage, taking into account that the injuries they suffered are closely linked—both causally and temporally—to the subject of the case admitted: that is, the injuries took place in the same context as the deaths of the seven alleged victims listed in the admissibility report. The Commission particularly takes into consideration that the State did not raise any objection to including them as alleged victims, even recognizing there were “approximately 27 inmates injured” as a result of the facts of November 10, 2003. B. Rights to life115 and personal integrity116 in conjunction with articles 1.1117 and 2118 of the Convention. 1. Presence of military forces in prison facilities 58. As the Commission and the Court have indicated repeatedly, States must limit the use of the Armed Forces to keep the peace as much as possible, as the training they receive is aimed at defeating an enemy, not protecting and supervising civilians. 119 Therefore, “the possibility of assigning the Armed Forces tasks aimed at restricting the personal liberty of civilians, in addition to meeting the requirements of strict proportionality in the restriction of a right, must respond, in turn, to strict exceptional criteria and due diligence in the protection of treaty guarantees, bearing in mind [...] that the regime governing the armed forces [...] is not compatible with the functions of civilian authorities.”120 59. Additionally, in order to fulfill the duty to guarantee the rights of people deprived of liberty, it is essential for penitentiary personal to be suitable and trained.121 In this regard, the IACHR has found that: States need to guarantee that penitentiaries are run and guarded by qualified, civilian staff, with civil servant status. That is, these functions must be entrusted to a security body independent of the military and police forces, and educated and trained in penitentiary issues. These professionals must have been trained in programs, schools, or penitentiary academies established specifically for that purpose and pertaining to the institutional structure of the authority responsible for administering the penitentiary system.122 60. Likewise, in the case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, the Inter-American Court ordered as a measure of non-repetition that the Venezuelan State “implement a penitentiary security service of nonmilitary nature.”123 So far, this change has not been made either in law or practice. In this case, the IACHR has established that the National Guard entered the Vista Hermosa Prison Article 4.1 states, in relevant part: 1. “Every person has the right to have his life respected. [...] No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” 116 Article 5 states, in relevant part: “1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected; 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 117 Article 1.1 states, in relevant part: The States Parties [...] undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination [...].” 118 Article 2 states, in relevant part: “[...] States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms.” 119 See I/A Ct. H.R. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Judgment of November 26, 2010, para. 88; see also IACHR. Report on the Human Rights Situation in Mexico (1998), paras. 399-409. 120 I/A Ct. H.R. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Judgment of November 26, 2010, para. 89. 121 IACHR, Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas (2011), para. 171-175. 122 IACHR, Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas (2011), para. 193. Likewise, regarding suitability of penitentiary personnel, the report noted that “custody [...] exercised by members of the police or armed forces trained under anti‐ democratic regimes or by instructors or higher‐ranking officers educated under such regimes” is not adequate for guaranteeing respect for human rights. Id. at para. 176. 123 I/A Ct. H.R. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Judgment of July 5, 2006, para. 144. 115 13