13 6. Prepare long-term plans based on statistical forecasts of the increase in the inmate population at the prison so as to be able to plan what the prison’s long-term energy demands will be. 14 o Opinion prepared by Industrial Electrical Engineer Luis Alberto González Aldana at the request of the Office of the Public Prosecutor: FINAL TECHNICAL OPINION Given the conclusions described in part four of this technical opinion, our final opinion is as follows: 1. Due to the overload from air conditioners, air curtains and ventilators. 2. Due to the fact that the electrical installations in Cellblock 19 were unsafe. The insulation of the cables and other insulation heated up, which caused electrical arcing fed mainly by the oxygen in the arc’s environment and the presence of the aforementioned flammable materials. The fire was fueled by clothing, mattresses and the plastic parts of the electrical appliances and by the electronic parts of the existing equipment, which triggered small explosions. Among the materials that fed the fire were some that produce very dense, toxic smoke which was the source of the intoxication that the inmates suffered; at that hour of the morning they were probably asleep. It is obvious in the cell that the flames were not as intense as the toxic smoke that the air conditioners (evaporators) and ventilators -which briefly continued to operate- circulated. 15 33. According to statements that San Pedro Sula prison administrator Mauricio Abelardo Guardado Rivera made during the criminal investigations (Case 1009/04), the succession of directors at that penal institution were aware of the problems with the electrical system; however, the prison had little in the way of resources and a meager budget. He testified that the director is the prison official who gives the authorization for the household electrical appliances to be brought in. He also testified that the person in charge of maintaining the electrical installations was an inmate; that the inmates in Cellblock 19 would not let him enter, with the result that a reliable inventory of the number of electrical devices in that Cellblock could never be taken. 16 34. For its part, the State expressly acknowledges the occurrence of the fire, its magnitude and its causes: The State of Honduras has not denied that on May 17, 2004, at the Prison of the city of San Pedro Sula, Department of Cortés, specifically in Cellblock 19, a fire broke out that claimed 14 The petitioners’ observations on the merits, dated April 10, 2009. Annex 20, CD with record of the court case in the domestic proceedings and testimony. Case 1009/04. Volume VII. At pages 1826, 1847-1848: Inspection of the Electrical System in Cellblock 19 of the San Pedro Sula Prison, conducted by technical personnel of the National Electric Power Company (ENEE) with the prosecution’s authorization, pp. 1, 22-23. 15 Original petition received on July 14, 2005. Annex 30. Case 1009/04. Folios 1870, 1882, 1883 and 1886: Technical Opinion on the Fire in Cellblock No. 19 of the San Pedro Sula Prison, prepared by Engineer Luis Alberto González Aldana. 16 Original petition received on July 14, 2005. Annex 12. Case 1009/04. Folios 1455 and 1456: Record of Initial Hearing. Similarly, Ramón Nolberto García, Director of the San Pedro Sula Prison and appointed subsequent to the fire, told the newspaper Tiempo that the question of whether electrical devices are to be allowed to enter the prison is the responsibility of the prison’s director. See, original petition received on July 14, 2005. Annex 2. Article published in Tiempo, Wednesday, May 19, 2004. Furthermore, in the statements made during the proceedings on the case surviving inmate Dennis Antonio Santín said that other inmates installed and manipulated the electrical installations in the prison. See: The petitioners’ observations on the merits dated April 10, 2009. Annex 20. CD with the record of the domestic court proceedings in the case and testimony. Case 1009/04. Volume I. Folios 224 and 225: Witness statement of Dennis Antonio Santín.