5 According to the petitioners, by allowing this combination of problems to go unaddressed, the State failed to honor its consubstantial obligations as guarantors of the rights of those deprived of liberty. 18. As for the merits of the present case, the petitioners argue that the facts denounced constitute violations of the rights to life, to humane treatment, to personal liberty and the duty to properly investigate the facts denounced and make reparations to the next of kin. 19. The petitioners allege that the State violated the victims’ right to life (Articles 4 and 1(1) of the Convention) by allowing the San Pedro Sula Prison to become a dangerous institution as a result of a worn and shoddy electrical system. They further contend that the State is in noncompliance with its obligation to guarantee the right to life and to make reparations for the violations. It is the petitioners’ position that the reparations should include an effective investigation of the facts and compensation and psychological treatment for the next of kin of the deceased. 20. The petitioners are alleging that the State violated the victims’ right to humane treatment (Articles 5(1), 5(2), 5(4), 5(6) and 1(1) of the Convention) based on the following: (a) By subjecting the deceased inmates to detention conditions that violated the right to humane treatment. The petitioners allege, for example, that the physical structure of Cellblock 19 was in deplorable condition; that the inmates lived in overcrowded conditions, with 183 persons confined to a space measuring 15 x 20 meters; that Cellblock 19 had no ventilation or natural lighting (with the result that inmates set up air conditioners and ventilators); that visiting was done in the inmates’ beds; that sanitary and hygienic conditions were inadequate and insufficient, with no regular supply of running water; and that accused inmates were co-mingled with convicted inmates in Cellblock 19. (b) It is alleged that at least 45 of the young men who died were in preventive custody pending trial at the time of the fire. Under Article 5(4) of the American Convention, save in exceptional circumstances, accused inmates are to be segregated from convicted inmates. The petitioners allege further that of these 45 inmates in preventive custody, 22 were charged only with the crime of unlawful association. 3 (c) By the circumstances under which the 107 victims died –either from the burns they sustained or from smoke inhalation, which caused them particular pain and suffering, especially those inmates whose agony was prolonged by their hospitalization. (d) By subjecting the victims to treatment unlike the treatment given to the rest of the inmate population at the San Pedro Sula prison. The petitioners allege that one of the features of the State’s policy vis-à-vis gang-related crime is to segregate gang members in prisons. As part of this segregation, the petitioners contend, inmates accused or convicted of being gang members have less access to sports facilities and educational, job-related, social and religious services. (e) By failing to take positive measures to ensure that sentences serve the aim of social re-adaptation set forth in the American Convention (Article 5(6)). It is alleged that the State did not give this group of inmates access to any kind of educational, vocational or recreational activity, and that the only activities to which they had access were those organized by churches. They further allege that the competent authorities never set up the technical boards required under the Law on 3 The petitioners’ observations on the merits, dated April 10, 2009.