decision to dismiss the proceedings meant that the responsibility for the facts fell on other authorities. However, no other authority was investigated with due diligence. Furthermore, more than seven years have passed without any responsibilities having been determined for an incident for which the causes were established from the very outset; hence this period exceeds a reasonable time for this type of investigation. Based on the foregoing, the State failed to provide the victims’ next of kin with an effective remedy to ascertain what happened and to establish the corresponding responsibilities, thereby violating the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument.57 B. Obligation of prevention with regard to prison conditions 63. This Court has held that, in accordance with Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, every person deprived of liberty has the right to live in detention conditions that are compatible with his or her personal dignity. In addition, the State must guarantee the right to life and to humane treatment of those deprived of liberty because the prison authorities exercise total control over them.58 64. Given this special interaction and relationship between the inmate and the State, the latter must assume a specific series of responsibilities and take special actions to guarantee that inmates have the necessary conditions to lead a decent life, and to contribute to the exercise of those rights that, under no circumstances, can be restricted or whose restriction does not necessarily arise from the deprivation of liberty.59 65. In the present case it has been established that the detention conditions in cell No. 19 were contrary to human dignity. Among other factors, there were serious conditions of overpopulation and overcrowding and the cell had no ventilation or natural light. In addition, the water service was inadequate and, at the time of the facts, there was no running water. The inmates of the cell did not receive proper medical care, the food was poor, there was no area for visits, and the inmates did not have access to recreation and rehabilitation programs (supra paras. 37 to 41). 66. Furthermore, it was proved that the electrical system was deplorable and the overload of appliances resulted in a short circuit that caused the fire (supra paras. 32, 39 and 49). At the time of the incident, the prison lacked adequate mechanisms to prevent and fight fires. The only instructions that the staff had in such cases were to call the fire department and to shoot at the ground (supra para. 34). The facts reveal that, during the fire, the inmates could not leave the cell for about an hour, and this led to many deaths due to asphyxia by suffocation and severe burns (supra para. 48). 67. This Court has incorporated into its case law the main standards on prison conditions and the obligation of prevention that the State must guarantee to persons deprived of liberty.60 In particular, as this Court has established: 57 In this regard, the representatives agreed with the contents of the Commission’s merits report. 58 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 60, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, para. 42. 59 Cf. Case of the “Children’s Rehabilitation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 153. 60 Cf. United Nations, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of the Offender, held at Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council by its Resolutions 663C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957, and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977; U.N., Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under any Form of Detention or Prison 19