89 which people were killed and injured, especially when either malice or negligence was involved. It would, therefore, be “unjust” to compensate the former inmates of Cellblock No. 8 and their next of kin since one or several of them was or were the cause of the fire, “with premeditation and malice aforethought.” 143. In the case of Article 5 of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, the State argued that: a) it did admit to responsibility with regard to detention conditions incompatible with human dignity and with regard to the violation of Article 5, paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, to the detriment of the alleged victims named in the brief of application and in the Court’s June 21, 2002 order; b) the Center had an educational program and ongoing sports program for all inmates; c) it prohibited solitary confinement as a form of punishment; d) a lack of means made it difficult to segregate juveniles awaiting or standing trial from those already convicted. Nonetheless, efforts were being made to comply with that requirement; e) the practice of incarcerating juveniles in the Juvenile Cellblock at the Emboscada adult prison was not a form of discipline; instead, inmates placed there “d[id] not have the proper profile to fit into the social and educational model developed at the Education Centers”; f) the overpopulation, crowding, slow pace of court cases, and the high percentage of inmates never convicted are uncontested facts. There is sufficient documentary evidence from official sources detailing the inadequacies of the State prison system. What has to be proved, however, are the human rights allegedly violated in each individual case; the alleged victim must be identified clearly and conclusively, not in some general and ambiguous way; g) the operation of the Itauguá Education Center and the La Esperanza Penal Farm and, in its time, the former La Salle Education Center, coupled with the establishment of the National Service for the Treatment of Juvenile Offenders (SENAAI) were wise moves on the State’s part and helped to improve the lot of children in conflict with the law; h) under the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, juveniles in detention awaiting trial can be held in adult penal institutions, provided they are held in a separate part of the adult institution. The State looked for a way to ensure that minors transferred from the Center would have no contact with the adult inmates while at the Emboscada prison. However, there may have been exceptions where such contact did take place; and i) the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty provide that “The Rules shall be implemented in the context of the economic, social and cultural conditions prevailing in each Member State.”