35 She received complaints of mistreatment and torture of adolescents when the Center was in Emboscada and when it moved to Asunción. When she received informal complaints, she contacted the national authorities, especially the Office of the Attorney General of the State. However, the responses obtained in the various cases were “consistently unsatisfactory; no one has ever tried to find out who was to blame and no preventive measures have been taken for the future.” o) Testimony of Carlos Alberto Torres Alújas, Ciriaco Rubén Valdéz Cáceres and Christian Raphael Rojas Salinas, firefighters These witnesses, members of Paraguay’s Fire Brigade, explained firefighters did when the fires broke out at the Center. what the p) Testimony of Miguel Ángel Insaurralde Coeffier, Director of the National Burns Center The witness was director of the National Burns Center at the time of the ‘Panchito López’ Center’s February 11, 2000 fire. The Burns Center received approximately 30 patients, all of whom suffered from significant respiratory problems and cutaneous burns covering anywhere from 15% to 30% of the body. In general, the process of getting the patients into their respective beds, with professional care and proper equipment, took less than three hours. The National Burns Center had just opened the month the fire occurred. It had adequate infrastructure in place and a well trained staff. Inmates stayed at the Burns Center for anywhere from 15 days to four months. All those patients received comprehensive care. They had pharmacological support; some had reconstructive surgery. A burn victim is regarded as a patient for many years, because of the cutaneous scarring and respiratory after-effects he or she might have. However, the treatment was never completed because the inmates did not come to the hospital for treatment as assiduously as they should have. The hospital had no way of knowing why these patients did not come back for follow-up treatment, given the “special circumstances” of those particular patients. The hospital had no way of knowing whether these patients had been released from incarceration or were still being held. q) Testimony of Carolina Isabel Laspina de Vera, former Deputy Director of the Itauguá Education Center The witness was deputy director of the Itauguá Education Center and Director of the La Salle Center. She had also worked at the ‘Panchito López’ Center at one time. The witness knew inmates who had been at “Panchito López,” and subsequently at Itauguá and La Salle; some have been released and are now working and studying. When the young people at the Center learned that they would be moved to Itauguá, they had a change of heart, as “it was a hope for them.” Because of considerations having to do with infrastructure and understaffing, and the need to prepare the young people at the Center and at Itauguá in advance, the transfers were done gradually and progressively. The witness never thought massive transfers would be advisable.