26 70. On the subject of the right to humane treatment, the Court has linked the right protected under Article 5 with Article 27 of the Convention where it wrote that the right to humane treatment is of such importance that the American Convention protects it by specifically prohibiting, inter alia, torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment; it also lists the right to humane treatment among those non-derogable rights that may not be suspended during states of emergency. 64 71. The right to life and the right to humane treatment require not only that the State respect them (negative obligation) but also that the State adopt all appropriate measures to protect and preserve them (positive obligation), in furtherance of the general obligation that the State undertakes in Article 1(1) of the Convention. 65 72. The Inter-American Commission finds that there is sufficient evidence to show that the death of the 107 victims in the instant case was not the result of a fortuitous and unpredictable event; instead, it was the result of a long series of omissions on the part of State authorities in fulfilling their obligations to ensure a safe and healthy environment for the persons deprived of liberty in Cellblock 19. The general conditions at the San Pedro Sula Prison; the specific detention conditions in Cellblock 19; the failure to control the inflow of electrical devices and appliances in Cellblock 19; the absence of fire extinguishers; the indefensible lack of a contingency policy or plan and the failure to train the prison staff to respond to incidents of this kind, constitute a confluence of circumstances that made the death of these 107 persons anything but fortuitous; instead, it was predictable and preventable, which made the State internationally responsible. 73. The Commission observes that the State’s negligence in preventing the fire that broke out on May 17, 2004 in the San Pedro Sula Prison is obvious. It has been established, and admitted by the State itself, that the fire was caused by a short circuit triggered by the excessive number of electrical devices in Cellblock 19, which exceeded the load capacity of the already worn electrical wiring in the cellblock. The Commission deems that inasmuch as the State is guarantor of the rights of persons in its custody, its duty was to effectively police the influx of devices of this kind into the prison and regulate their possession by inmates by technical standards and in an organized way, not the haphazard way it was done in the instant case. 74. Another consideration for the Commission is why the inmates in Cellblock 19 felt compelled to plug in so many fans and air conditioners, which was that the cellblock lacked proper ventilation and was built in such a way that the environment inside was one of suffocating heat. 75. Another factor well documented by the petitioners and not contested by the State was that authorities were fully aware of the general condition of the San Pedro Sula Penitentiary, and specifically the conditions in Cellblock 19. Indeed, the conditions at the prison were public knowledge. Therefore, although it had prior knowledge of the situation described here and had on a number of occasions been alerted to the problems, the State failed to undertake the measures that it was obligated to take to prevent fire and to control a fire if it broke out. 64 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, paragraph 157. Series Series C No. Series 65 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 2, C No. 112, paragraph 158; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Judgment of July 8, C No. 110, paragraph 129; I/A Court H.R., Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Judgment of July 5, 2004. 109, paragraph 153; I/A Court H.R., Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, C No. 101, paragraph 153. 2004. 2004. Series 2003.