2 complexity of the facts of the case, and that the inquiry remains open. It blamed the problems with prison conditions on a shortage of human and material resources. 5. After examining the parties’ positions, at its 140º Regular Session the Inter-American Commission concluded that the Honduran State is responsible for violation of the rights recognized in articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the general obligations undertaken in articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. II. PROCESSING WITH THE COMMISSION 6. The parties were notified of the Admissibility Report on November 12, 2008. In that same communication, they were advised that the petition had been classified as case number 12,680. Pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the petitioners were asked to submit, within two months’ time, any additional comments they might have on the merits. Under Article 38(4) of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission also placed itself at the parties’ disposal with a view to arriving at a friendly settlement of the matter, in keeping with Article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention. It asked that they respond to its offer as soon as possible. 7. On April 10, 2009, the petitioners submitted their observations on the merits, with the respective attachments. Subsequently, on May 14, 2009, the petitioners sent the Commission a CD containing the following: the observations on the merits and its attachments in electronic format; the testimony of the victims’ next of kin; and the record of the judicial inquiries into the facts denounced. 8. The petitioners’ observations on the merits and the attachments were forwarded to the Permanent Mission of Honduras to the OAS on May 18, 2009; on May 26, 2009, they were personally delivered to an official with the Honduran Ministry of Foreign Affairs. By a note dated December 14, 2009, the IACHR sent the State another copy of the petitioners’ observations on the merits and the attachments. However, the State has thus far not presented its observations on the merits. III. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS A. The petitioners 9. The petitioners assert that sometime between 1:30 and 2:00 a.m. on May 17, 2004, a fire broke out in Cellblock 19 of the San Pedro Sula Prison, which was housing 183 inmates considered to be members of the gang known as Mara Salvatrucha “MS 13”. Accused inmates in preventive detention pending trial were not segregated from convicted inmates. The petitioners state that at 1:55 a.m., the Director of the prison called the Fire Department and the National Police to report the fire and that by 2:30 a.m., when the authorities arrived, most of the inmates had already died of smoke inhalation. The 107 victims who died in the fire were inmates being deprived of their liberty. The petitioners point out that of those who perished, 104 died there at the scene of the fire; the other three died in the hospital. They also state that 10 percent of the deceased burned to death, whereas the other 90% died from carbon monoxide poisoning. Another 26 inmates sustained burns in the fire. The petitioners report that when the firefighters arrived at 2:30 a.m. to put out the fire, the inmates were still inside Cellblock 19. 10. They note that while there are discrepancies about how long it was between the time the fire broke out and the time when the inmates were finally let out, it has been amply documented that the authorities were unable to respond fast enough to prevent the loss of inmate’s lives. They added that several persons testified to the fact that at the time the blaze broke out the guards began to fire their weapons, which only added to the general confusion amid the fire. This