15 4.3. The Government of Peru has complied with the duty of adopting domestic legal provisions. The evidence submitted in the instant case does not verify a failure to observe the precept contained in Article 2 of the American Convention since it has been demonstrated that a regulatory order was in force prior to the events in question, as well as the fact that it displayed its legal consequences through authorities that were pre-determined by the Constitution and the Law . . . 4.4. In the instant case, the abundant evidence submitted does not prove that the Peruvian State violated Article 7 of the American Convention, given the fact that the alleged victims were deprived of their freedom by decisions of ordinary justice . . . 4.5. In the case under consideration, there is no proof that the Peruvian State was involved with the violation of Article 8 of the American Convention . . . 4.6. In the course of the proceedings, it has not been proven that the Government of Peru would be responsible for having violated Article 25 of the American Convention . . . VII 60. In the terms of Article 5(2) of the Convention, every person deprived of her or his liberty has the right to live in detention conditions compatible with her or his personal dignity, and the State must guarantee to that person the right to life and to humane treatment. Consequently, since the State is the institution responsible for detention establishments, it is the guarantor of these rights of the prisoners. 61. In the instant case, Peru had the right and the duty to subdue the uprising of the San Juan Bautista Prison, even more so given the fact that it did not occur suddenly. Rather, the uprising appears to have been prepared in advance, given that the prisoners had made weapons of different types, dug tunnels, and practically taken control of the Blue Pavilion. It must also be kept in mind that, during the initial phase of the crushing of the riot by the Republican Guard, the prisoners captured one corporal and two guards as hostages, wounded another four guards, and took possession of three rifles and an automatic pistol with which they caused deaths among the forces that entered to crush the riot. 62. The majority's Peruvian Congressional Commission investigative report states that the "disproportion of the war potential employed is nevertheless inferred from the results of the action. The final demolition, after the surrender which occurred at 14:30 hours on the nineteenth, would not have a logical explanation and would, consequently, be unjustified" Also, the minority report stated as follows: It has been shown that the government, in failing to comply with its obligation to protect human life, gave orders which resulted in an unjustifiable number of deaths . . . The military force used was disproportionate in relationship to the actual danger present, and no precautionary measures were put into effect to reduce the human cost of crushing the riot (supra para. 43). 63. The Court considered it unnecessary to analyze whether the functionaries and authorities who took part in the crushing of the riot acted consistently with their functions and in accordance with domestic law, since the responsibility for the actions of Government functionaries is attributable to the State, independently of whether the functionary contravened provisions of internal law or overstepped the limits of his authority: under international law a State is responsible for the acts of its agents undertaken in their official capacity and for their omissions, even when those agents act outside the sphere of their authority or violate internal law (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 170; Godínez Cruz Case, Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 179).