4 103) Walter Yovany Banegas Sandoval, 104) Josué Ramón Hernández López, 105) José Antonio Rodríguez, 106) Nelson Rafael Ortega Martínez, and 107) Edward Omar Tabora. 13. The petitioners contend that the material facts of the present case must be viewed against the much broader general backdrop of the gang phenomenon in Honduras. The course of action that the State had opted to pursue in response to the phenomenon was reportedly law enforcement policies known as “zero tolerance”; the policies’ objective was not to treat this social problem or to rehabilitate the members of these groups, but rather to repress and wipe out gangs. 14. The petitioners assert that the national prison system is rife with serious problems. As examples, they cite the fact that the inmate capacity has been so far exceeded that the prison administration reportedly regard as habitable, places in the prison that were never meant for that purpose. They also point to the fact that the prisons are very run-down; many had been built decades ago but no improvements have been made since and they had not been properly maintained. They further contend that the General Bureau of Special Services, whose budget would otherwise go almost entirely toward covering the costs of staffing the prisons and feeding the inmates, was without funds; the prisons are not adequately staffed, but are particularly short on prison security guards and medical staff in general; they also have no re-socialization programs, as the State has virtually abandoned any effort to provide education and training within the prisons. The petitioners contend that the prison administration publicly acknowledges this situation. 15. As for the specific conditions in Cellblock 19 where the fire broke out, the petitioners reported that it was an area of less than 200 square meters, made of cinder block and roof sheeting. At the time of the fire, it was housing 183 people. It was cramped and had no natural lighting; the only door was the entrance door and a small opening for ventilation near the ceiling. The interior of the cell was covered with bunks and inmate belongings; the only area that was clear was a narrow aisle area between the beds, which was how one from one place to another. Cellblock 19 did not have a water service and water was supplied at irregular intervals between 7:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. On the night before the fire, there was allegedly no water supply. 16. The petitioners report and document that some months before the catastrophic fire, the directors of the San Pedro Sula Prison had sent letters to the electric power company, to the General Bureau of Special Services and to other officials alerting them to the shoddy electrical system at the prison. However, the public authorities allegedly failed to take the necessary measures. The petitioners contend that the maintenance work on the electrical wiring and cables within the prison was done by an inmate, who was unable to get into Cellblock 19 because the inmates there would not let him in. In Cellblock 19, the inmates themselves made the modifications they wanted to the Cellblock’s electrical outlets and wiring. Nowhere in the prison was anyone checking to see what electrical devices were being brought in and installed. The prison administration knew what was happening; nevertheless, no steps were taken to ensure safety at the prison. 17. The petitioners contend that the Honduran State’s international responsibility in the death of the 107 victims in the present case is the direct result of its failure to honor its duty to prevent; its negligence in failing to take the basic measures necessary to guarantee the victims’ lives and personal safety. In their original petition, the petitioners state that the principal omissions that combined to cause the fire are as follows: (a) neglect of the electrical wiring and other parts of the electrical system, as a result of which they became worn and frayed; (b) negligence in checking the condition of the electrical outlets, wiring and other parts of the electrical system, leaving it to the inmates themselves to do the necessary maintenance and checks; (c) the inefficacy of the measures to control inmates’ use of electrical devices; (d) the lack of mechanisms that would allow early intervention in the event of a fire, such as fire extinguishers or fire sprinkler systems, and (e) the lack of an emergency protocol to organize the response by police and emergency personnel.