22 55. On November 22, 2004, the San Pedro Sula Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and upheld the dismissal of the charges against Mr. Elías Canaca. The appellate court basically agreed with the lower-court’s findings. In its ruling, it wrote that: [W]e understand that the function of the accused, Mr. ELIAS ACEITUNO CANACA, was to protect the safety of the inmates […] However, in our view, his performance of that function was limited by his subordination to his superiors, who in fact had the authority to earmark the budgetary funds necessary to put a stop to a source of latent danger, of which all the authorities in this branch were aware: i.e., the danger posed by the deplorable state of the electrical installations at the San Pedro Sula Prison. […] The record also proves that the accused was not the cause of the dangerous situation at the Prison, specifically in Cellblock 19. When he became Director of the prison, the air conditioners and other electrical devices in that Cellblock had already been brought in. Nothing in the record suggests that Mr. Elías Canaca gave his authorization to allow additional devices to be brought into the prison. 48 56. To challenge the Appellate Court’s decision, the Public Prosecutor’s Office filed a petition of amparo with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, which declared the petition inadmissible in a decision dated January 10, 2005. 49 57. No information has been received from the State –nor does the record suggest- that subsequent to this petition of amparo any further progress was made in the investigations into the May 17, 2004 fire in Cellblock 19. The Commission has no information to the effect that other lines of investigation were pursued or that authorities or civil servants other than then Director Elías Aceituno Canaca may be held accountable under either criminal or administrative law or may face disciplinary sanctions. V. THE LAW A. Preliminary observations: the State as guarantor of those deprived of liberty 58. As the basis of the international obligations undertaken by the States parties, Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights provides that 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 […].” However, these general obligations to respect and to ensure, which are binding upon the State for all persons, demand from the State an even greater degree of commitment vis-à-vis persons who are vulnerable or at risk, as in the case of persons deprived of their liberty and who are under the State’s control for the duration of their detention or imprisonment. Therefore, when the State detains someone, it becomes immediately responsible for that person’s life, personal integrity and, ultimately, all those rights that are not restricted by the very act of depriving one of one’s liberty. Thus, the State becomes the guarantor of the rights of persons deprived of liberty. 48 The petitioners’ observations on the merits, dated April 10, 2009. Annex 20. CD with the record of the domestic court proceedings in the case and testimony. Case 1009/04. Volume VII. Folios 2003-2005: Certification. 49 The petitioners’ observations on the merits, dated April 10, 2009. Annex 20. CD with the record of the domestic court proceedings in the case and testimony. Document called: Appeal.