I INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. On March 11, 2011, pursuant to Articles 51 and 61 of the Convention, the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the InterAmerican Commission”), submitted to the Court case 12,680 against the State of Honduras (hereinafter “the State” or “Honduras”). The initial petition was lodged before the InterAmerican Commission on July 14, 2005, by the organizations Pastoral Penitenciaria, CARITAS Sampedrana and Equipo de Reflexión, Investigación y Comunicación (ERIC) [Reflection, Research and Communication Team] (hereinafter “the representatives”). On October 17, 2008, the Commission approved Report on Admissibility No. 78/08 and on October 22, 2010, it issued Report on Merits No. 118/10 under Article 50 of the American Convention (hereinafter “Merits Report”).2 The latter was notified to Honduras in a communication of December 14, 2010, granting it two months to report on its compliance with the recommendations. The Commission indicated that, when the period expired without the State having complied with the recommendations, it submitted the case to the Court based on the need to obtain justice and fair reparation. The Inter-American Commission appointed Felipe González, Commissioner, and Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary, as delegates and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, Lilly Ching, Isabel Madariaga and Andrés Pizarro, lawyers of the Executive Secretariat, as legal advisors. 2. According to the Commission, this case concerns the State’s alleged international responsibility for “the death of […] 107 inmates deprived of liberty , on May 17, 2004, in the “bartolina” or cell No. 19 of the San Pedro Sula Prison [as] a direct result of a series of structural deficiencies in this prison, that the competent authorities were aware of.” The Commission indicated that the deceased were “members of maras [gangs]’’ who were kept apart from the rest of the prison population and confined to an unsafe and unhygienic cell.” In addition, the Commission indicated that the facts of this case “are ultimately a consequence of the structural deficiencies of the Honduran prison system, which have been documented extensively.” Also, the case “forms part of the overall context of public security policies and prison policies aimed at combating the criminal organizations known as maras [gangs]. As such, the situations described in the complaints […] are common in other Central American States.” Moreover, “the State has not investigated the reported facts or punished those responsible diligently and in keeping with its inherent legal obligation.” 3. The Commission asked that the Court declare a violation of Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 9 (Freedom 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. The Commission also requested that the Court order the State to adopt measures of reparation. 2 In merits report No. 118/10, the Commission concluded that the State of Honduras was responsible for the violation of Articles (a) 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 5(6) to the detriment of the 107 inmates who died in the fire; (b) 5(4), 7(3) and 9 in relation to 1(1) and 2 to the detriment of the 22 presumed victims individualized in paragraph 21 of the Commission’s merits report, and (c) 5(1), 8(1) and 25(1) to the detriment of the 83 next of kin of 18 of the 107 inmates who died in the fire. The Commission recommended to the State that it: (a) conduct a diligent investigation in order to identify and punish those responsible for the fire that occurred on May 17, 2004, in the San Pedro Sula Prison; (b) make pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparation to the next of kin of the victims; (c) adopt measures to guarantee the non-repetition of the facts and the harmonization of its substantive and procedural criminal laws with the content and scope of Articles 7 and 9 of the Convention, and (e) acknowledge its international responsibility for the facts denounced in this case. Merits report No. 118/10, Case 12,680, Rafael Arturo Pacheco Teruel et al., October 22, 2010 (merits report, tome I, folios 7 to 51). 4