from Ex Post Facto Laws), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. However, the Court considers it appropriate to include some considerations with regard to these rights in Chapters VII and VIII of the judgment. 21. Regarding the measures of reparation outlined by the State and the representatives of the victims in the friendly settlement agreement, the Court endorses them, as indicated in this judgment, because they contribute to the achievement of the object and purpose of the American Convention. Nevertheless, the Court will analyze these measures in Chapter VIII, in order to determine their scope and means of implementation. Since the friendly settlement agreement seeks to provide reparation to additional victims to those identified in the Inter-American Commission’s Report on Merits, the Court will rule in this regard in section A) of Chapter VIII of this judgment. 22. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the facts and the violations acknowledged by the State, the Court will proceed to make a detailed determination of the facts that occurred and will include some consideration on the obligation of prevention in relation to prison conditions and on the standards applicable to the measures of reparation agreed by the parties, because the delivery of the judgment contributes to the reparation of the next of kin of the deceased victims in the case, to the prevention of a recurrence of similar events, and to fulfilling the objectives of the inter-American human rights jurisdiction.20 VI CONTEXT AND FACTS OF THE CASE 23. In light of the State’s acknowledgment of international responsibility and based on the evidence in the case file, the Court will refer to the context and facts that resulted in the violations in this case. A. The prison system in Honduras 24. It is public knowledge and the Court notes that, before and after the events that gave rise to this case, there had been other serious incidents in Honduran prisons, including the fires that occurred on April 5, 2003, at the El Porvenir Prison Farm, La Ceiba, in which 69 individuals died; on February 14, 2012, at the Comayagua Prison Farm, where 367 individuals died, and on March 29, 2012, at the same prison in San Pedro Sula, where another 13 individuals died.21 25. According to various national and international reports, at the time of the events the prison system in Honduras suffered from structural weaknesses. In this regard, throughout the country the prisons “were overpopulated, causing overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, 20 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 69, and Case of Contreras, supra note 18, para. 28. 21 Cf. News items: “13 muertos en un motín en la cárcel de San Pedro Sula en Honduras,” CNN en Español. Available at: http://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2012/03/29/incendio-en-la-carcel-principal-de-san-pedro-sula-enhonduras (last accessed March 30, 2012), and “Más de 350 personas muertas en el incendio de una cárcel en Honduras,” El Mundo newspaper. Available at: http://elmundo.es/america/2012/02/15/noticias/1329298250.html (last accessed March 30, 2012). 10