51 b) Obligation to implement the constitutional norms relating to the High Court of Justice 178. It has been established that the lack of judicial guarantees and judicial protection, in particular to ensure the right to personal liberty faced by Mr. Neptune, constitutes a generalized problem in Haiti. More specifically, although Articles 185 to 189 of the 1987 Haitian Constitution establishes the possible creation of a procedure to give a preliminary trial to certain senior public officials, it has been established that, at the present time, there is no law to regulate the procedure established in these norms and stipulate the guarantees that must be granted to any person eventually subjected to this procedure. This lack of juridical certainty and security could lead to the impunity of certain crimes, including grave human rights violations, should they be committed by high-ranking State authorities, as well as situations of juridical insecurity and violation of the right to due process for persons who hold such positions and are investigated or prosecuted for specific facts. 179. The Court orders the State, as a guarantee of non-repetition and irrespective of the observations contained in the preceding section (supra paras. 176 and 177), to adopt, as soon as possible, the legislative or other measures needed to regulate the procedures relating to the High Court of Justice, in order to define the respective competences, the procedural norms, and the minimum guarantees of due process. c) Publication of the judgment 180. As it has ordered in other cases, 226 as a measure of satisfaction the State must publish once in the official gazette and in another national newspaper with widespread coverage, paragraphs 1 to 10, 16 to 21, 36 to 155, 161, 163, 167, 168 and 170 to 183 of this judgment and its operative paragraphs. These publications must be made within one year of notification of this judgment. d) Prison conditions 181. The appalling conditions of Haitian prisons and detention centers have been brought to light in this case. It is pertinent to recall that international human rights treaties, particularly the American Convention, oblige States to provide decent living conditions for persons deprived of liberty. 182. Regarding the lack of security in the National Penitentiary, the Court has recognized that the State’s international obligation to ensure to all persons the full exercise of their human rights includes the obligation “to design and apply a penitentiary policy that prevents critical situations” that endanger the fundamental rights of the prisoners in their custody.227 226 Cf. Cantoral Benavides v. Perú. Reparations and costs, supra note 216, para. 79; The Saramaka People v. Suriname, supra note 36, para. 198, and Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 38, para. 157. 227 The “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay, supra note 137, para. 178. See also Matter of the Urso Branco Prison. Provisional measures with regard to Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 22, 2004, eleventh considering paragraph. Likewise, the European Court has established that Article 3 of the European Convention establishes the State’s obligation to adopt preventively concrete measures to protect the physical integrity and health of those deprived of liberty. Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Pantea v. Romania, judgement of 3 June 2003, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2003-VI (extracts), para. 190.