43 She requested that the Court rule the State’s responsibility for the breaches to her human rights and those of her next of kin, that those responsible for the genocide for political reasons be prosecuted and punished, and that her and her next of kin be granted complete reparation for the damages suffered. EXPERT REPORTS a) Proposed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: 1. Christopher Birkbeck, criminology specialist The explosions registered on the first day of the facts in the Criminal Center Castro Castro corresponded to a military action that is specifically mind grabbing, given the inmates’ characteristics of imprisonment and relative defenselessness. Two matters require special attention: the existence of weapons within the criminal center, and the non-use of alternative mechanisms to the use of force in the executions of the “Moving Operative 1”. Pursuant to information provided by survivors and the contents of a record of the seizure of weapons of May 10, 992 there were weapons within the criminal center at the time of the facts. The State and the prison administration did not comply with the security and control standards of prisons. If the possession of weapons had prevented among inmates, the Government would not have had a reason to expect resistance from the inmates. Facing the possibility of this type of resistance, nothing justified the need to act with physical force to end the conflict that arose regarding the operative, as effectively occurred in the dawno f May 6, 1992. When facing the resistance of inmates measures such as the following can be adopted: negotiations with inmates: offer rewards for compliance or threaten with punishments; restrict certain components of the visitation regimen in the prison; or use physical force to submit, confine, or transfer the inmates. The use of force should have been the last measure used. To recur to force immediately weakens and eliminates the possibility of other strategies. Therefore, the inmates could not trust that their lives would be respected when the police officers told them to surrender, which also impeded a peaceful agreement. The inclusion of sound grenades and shots as means of harassment can be clearly fit into the definition of torture formulated in the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. Given that physical force represents a means permitted for internal control in prisons, it is necessary to evaluate if that employed by the State was proportional to the degree of resistance of inmates and the objective of the operative. As of the reconstruction of the events made by the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation and by the Commission’s application, it is possible to distinguish two phases in the response of inmates before the situation presented. The first of them can be classified as resistance to authorities; the second as a surrender. The resistance started prior to May 6, 1992 when the inmates blocked doors and windows and reinforced the walls of the pavilions and it went on until 6 in the afternoon of May 9th, moment on which the inmates started surrendering before the authorities. During the resistance phase, there is no evidence of risks of escape. To the contrary, the inmates hid in their pavilions as in entrenchment.