97 176. In light of the brief answering the application, where the State admitted responsibility “with regard to the detention conditions incompatible with human dignity” and the other facts established in this chapter, the Court can conclude that the State did not effectively fulfill its role as guarantor of the rights of the child, in this special relationship of subordination between the State and the adult/child deprived of liberty. The State failed to take the necessary positive measures to ensure to all inmates decent living conditions. It also failed to take the special measures of protection that are required of it where children are concerned. Furthermore, it was the State that allowed its agents to threaten, infringe, violate or restrict nonderogable rights that may not be violated or restricted under any circumstances or in any way, by exposing all the inmates at the Center to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and to unfit living conditions that were prejudicial to their right to life, their growth and development and their life plans. By its failings, the State violated Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 5(6) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof and, in the case of the children, Article 19 of the Convention as well. These violations were committed to the detriment of all inmates at the Institute in the period from August 14, 1996 to July 25, 2001, whose names appear on the list submitted by the Commission on November 19, 2002 (supra para. 36), which is attached to the present Judgment. * * * 177. While the State failed to create the conditions and to take the measures necessary for the inmates at the Center to live in dignity and build a decent life while deprived of their liberty and failed to fulfill the added obligations it has vis-à-vis children, it also kept the Center in conditions that invited fire; those conditions also meant that when the fires inevitably happened, they had terrible consequences for the inmates. And it neglected those conditions despite repeated warnings and recommendations from international and nongovernmental organizations about the danger that conditions at the Center posed. As a result of these fires, the following inmates perished: Elvio Epifanio Acosta Ocampos, Marco Antonio Jiménez, Diego Walter Valdez, Sergio Daniel Vega Figueredo, Sergio David Poletti Domínguez, Mario del Pilar Álvarez Pérez, Juan Alcides Román Barrios, Antonio Damián Escobar Morinigo and Carlos Raúl de la Cruz (supra para. 134.29). 178. From the facts proven in the instant case (supra para. 134.32), it has been shown that the State did not take sufficient preventive measures to respond to the possibility of a fire at the Center. Because the facility was not originally planned to serve as a Reeducation Institute, none of the safety, evacuation-related and emergency measures needed for an event of this kind were taken. For example, the Center was not equipped with either fire alarms or fire extinguishers and guards were not trained to respond to emergencies. The Court has previously held that in its role as guarantor, the State has an obligation “to design and apply a crisisprevention prison policy,”173 the kind of crisis that could threaten the fundamental rights of inmates in the State’s care and custody. 179. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State’s failure to prevent resulted in the death of a number of inmates. If not for all inmates, the tragedy was particularly traumatic and painful for many of them, as the loss of life was caused by asphyxiation or burns, prolonging their suffering for a number of days. This is gross negligence on the State’s part, by virtue of which it is responsible 173 Matter of Urso Branco Prison, supra note 54, thirteenth paragraph under ‘Considering’.