appeal against the dismissal of the proceedings49 and, on November 22, 2004, the District Court of Appeal of San Pedro Sula declared that the appeal filed by the Public Prosecution Service was unfounded, and confirmed the dismissal of the proceedings.50 Overall, this decision concurred with the considerations of the first instance court.51 56. On December 17, 2004,52 the Public Prosecution Service filed an application for amparo against this decision of the Court of Appeal before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, stating that “the decision rendered by the ad quem violates the first paragraph of article 90 of the Constitution of the Republic, which establishes the guarantee of due process.”53 For its part, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the application for amparo in its judgment of September 27, 2005.54 57. There is no evidence in the case file that the State has taken measures other than the said judicial proceedings, or that it has followed other lines of investigation or considered the possible criminal, administrative or disciplinary responsibility of authorities or officials other than the director of the prison at the time of the fire. VII CONSIDERATIONS OF THE COURT REGARDING ARTICLES 4, 5, 7, 9, 8 AND 25, IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 58. Despite the State’s full acknowledgment of responsibility in relation to the violations of the rights that were described in the Commission’s Report on Merits, the Court, based on its jurisdiction and having assessed the significance and enormity of the facts, deems it necessary to include the following considerations with regard to the State’s obligation of prevention with regard to prison conditions, and with regard to the next of kin of the deceased. A. The rights violated 59. In view of the acknowledgement of facts and rights made by the State, regarding which the dispute has ceased, Honduras is responsible for violating the following rights. 60. In relation to the obligation to guarantee the right to life, the State acknowledged that it is responsible for violating Article 4(1) of the American Convention owing to the accordance with everything noted in this hearing, it can be inferred that the accused always played his role of guarantor […], because he proved convincingly his intention that corrective measures be taken to repair the prison’s electrical system […]. Thus, it is incongruent to [hold responsible] for these facts a simple citizen who […] did everything within his power and that he was obliged to do to avoid such a regrettable result.” 49 Cf. Appeal filed by the Public Prosecution Service (file of attachments to the merits report, attachment 61, folio 832). 50 Cf. Certification; reconsideration of the decision on appeal (file of attachments to the merits report, attachment 63, folio 841). 51 In its decision that court considered that “one of the functions of the accused […] was to protect the safety of the prisoners […]; however, […] his exercise of [this function] was restricted by his subordination to his superiors who decided on the budgetary allocation required to control a latent source of danger.” 52 Cf. File of the application for amparo (file of attachments to the merits report, attachment 64, folio 893. 53 Cf. Decision on the application for amparo delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice (file of attachments to the merits report, attachment 64, folio 899). 54 Cf. Certification of the judgment on amparo delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (file of attachments to the merits report, attachment 64, folio 904). 17