11 In the situation that concerns us, the absolute ineffectiveness of the petition for amnesty, pardon or commutation may be analysed from two perspectives, equally valid: in one sense, as a violation of the right to life according to the terms of the principle contained in the right; and in another sense, as a due process violation, as there was no due process in the processing of the claim: nor was there a hearing, evidence or argumentation that opened even a minor possibility that the request would be granted. It is from this that the Court deems, rightly in my opinion, that there has been a multiple violation: of Articles 4(6) and 8 in relation to 1(1). 18. Another issue, to which I would like now to refer, corresponds to the detention system that in the circumstances of this case constitutes a violation of Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the American Convention. In this framework it must be noted that the State as guarantor of the rights of the detained, is directly and wholly answerable for situation of its prisoners. 28 The position of guarantor, held in this case by the State, is derived from the fact that prisoners detained, awaiting execution or carrying out a sentence, are the subject of a carefully regulated regime, applied and supervised by the State itself, in a manner that is likely more rigorous than could otherwise be applied to any other category of persons. In these cases, which correspond to the entire institution that is prison, the condition of the State as guarantor originates in the duties contingent upon it in respect of arrest orders - or its equivalents - and sentencing judgments. Both authoritative acts imply the removal of the subject from the free environment in which he has developed and his placement in a completely different environment where his every act is subject to the control of the public authority. The title of guarantor implies: a) avoiding all that which may inflict further suffering on the subject than is strictly necessary for the purposes of the detention or the fulfilment of the sentence, on the one hand, and b) providing all that is relevant pursuant to the applicable law - to meet the aim of the imprisonment: security and social re-adaptation, regularly, on the other. 19. The is no lack of international material on the subject of the treatment of prisoners, where detainment is legally foreseen; in this literature a line is drawn between what is due and undue, between what is admissible and inadmissible. These materials provide a starting point from which to delineate the space in A which the State acts and the features of its mission as guarantor. 29 comparison of what is foreseen in the literature and the reality of the prison system could provide an understanding of the degree to which public duties have been fulfilled, duties which may not be neglected simply because those who are detained have seriously failed to comply with - and are thereby deserving of their sentence - their societal obligations. 28 This has been affirmed by the Court in I/A Court H.R., Neira Alegría et al. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C, No. 20, para. 60, referred to in the judgment to which this Opinion is attached. Mention is also made of the criteria of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, in Moriana Hernández Valenti de Bazzano v. Uruguay, No. 5/1977 of August 15, 1979, paras. 9-10. 29 Therefore - and only referring to the best known instruments - I will mention the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Geneva, 1955), approved by the United Nations Economic and Social Council on July 31, 1957, and reformed on May 13, 1977 by the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1988 (Res. 43/173), and the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 14, 1990 (Res. 45/111).