5 19. As in other cases where the Inter-American Court took notice of and made known deplorable prison conditions, the instant case addresses the issue of the atrocious state of some –how many?- institutions for people with mental illness. Any form of resistance by the affected persons is generally deemed as a riot –instead of a democratic form of dissent- and suppressed with strictness. Protests, if any, by inmates, beyond the mist of absence and surprise, may lead to an even worse destiny: a state of absolute indifference or “therapeutic” disciplinary actions that consist, in substance, in senseless severe punishment or intimidation. The reaction of a prison inmate is the consequence of an “ill feeling”; while the person with mental illness acts out of “insanity”, which is, by definition, irrational and dysfunctional. 20. I put a stress on the fact that the encounter between the alleged or purported criminal and the State, as fact finder and law enforcement agent, reveals the most obscure region of human rights domain: where “crime” and “law” meet, as in a predictable confrontation. However, speaking of human rights domain, the mist surrounding the encounter between the State as therapist and the person with mental illness is usually denser: where sense and stupidity -lucidity and insanitycollide. The outcome is also predictable. 21. Between a human being with mental illness and the powerful State –vested with the physical force of a guardian and the scientific knowledge of a therapist- the human rights line lies beside the willingness of the guarantor-State to comply with its constitutional obligations. The Judgment addresses some shades of this issue when it states that “this intrinsic imbalance in power between hospitalized patients and the persons having authority over them is usually greater in psychiatric institutions.” 22. One might reasonably, though not necessarily, conclude that the issue has been extensively studied and documented, in early times, in many contexts – the circumstances surrounding the encounter of a person with mental illness and those who interact with him like custodians, therapists and authorities, while held in an institution that welcomes the generally accepted practices of mental institutions, which are governed by detailed rules and entail the exercise of full authority by the custodian and the least autonomy by the ward who, by definition, lacks capacity to make considerations, enter into deliberations and do forecasts on which personal autonomy is reasonably based. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that the practices in those institutions –and, in general, the relationship among the institution, the therapist and the inmate- be subject to control and disciplinary measures that are implemented with fluency, competence, consistency and responsibility. 8. NULLUM CRIMEN NULLA POENA SINE LEGE PRAEVIA 23. As far as psychiatric treatment is concerned –institutional treatment, in particular, and home or walk-in treatment, during which close friends and relatives get involved- the principle of nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia, applicable to every form of detention and the right to be safe, adopts a special meaning. Nowadays –as in earlier times-, the law outlines the conditions for the detention of persons who commit crimes and infringements and sets out the limits and conditions of confinement. These are elements of the nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia doctrine, which have been recurrently overlooked or neglected.