B. General conditions in the San Pedro Sula Prison 29. The San Pedro Sula Prison is located in one of the most populous areas of the city with the most traffic. At the time of the facts, it had 21 cells with the capacity to accommodate approximately 1,500 individuals. However, on the day of the fire there were 2,081 inmates. 30. Conflicts between gangs were frequent in the prison. On April 20, 2004, a group of inmates caused an uprising in the prison dining room, preventing the prison police from accessing the complex. This group of inmates detonated Molotov cocktails in the cell of the inmates who belonged to a specific “mara.” As a result of that incident, the prison director sought judicial authorization to transfer the inmates who had been affected to another prison so as to protect them. In this regard, in a resolution of April 21, 2004, the Enforcement Court of the Judicial Section of San Pedro Sula authorized the transfer of inmates and concluded that the prison had problems such as overcrowded cells, proliferation of offenses, lack of appropriate personnel proportionate to the existing population, failure to classify inmates, and corruption among the prison staff.28 31. In addition, “the […] inmates exercised a form of control in the prison, which to a certain point had been permitted by the prison authorities, who had not monitored the introduction of weapons and bombs, placing the prison population and the visitors at risk.”29 32. The conditions of the prison’s electrical system were “deplorable” and represented a latent risk of fire. The person responsible for the maintenance of the electrical installations was one of the inmates. This situation was public knowledge and the prison authorities were also aware of it.30 In this regard, two months before the fire, the prison director had written to the Manager for the North-Northwest Division of the National Electricity Company requesting “his […] collaboration to try to improve or correct the electrical system within the prison, as it ha[d] collapsed and there [was] a risk of a fire, particularly during the hot summer days.”31 33. The entry of electric appliances was authorized by the director. An inventory of these appliances existed; however, it was imprecise and unreliable because it was the inmates themselves who provided the information on the number of devices in their possession, and this was not corroborated subsequently by any authority.32 28 Cf. Decision of the Enforcement Court of the Judicial District of San Pedro Sula of April 21, 2004 (file of attachments to the merits report, attachment 50, folios 658 and 659). 29 Cf. Decision of the Enforcement Court of April 21, 2004, supra note 28, folio 658. 30 Cf. Proceedings of the initial hearing issued by the First Instance Court of San Pedro Sula on August 1, 2004 (file of attachments to the merits report, attachment 31, folios 377 to 402); testimony rendered by Mauricio Abelardo Guardado Rivera on August 1, 2004, during the criminal proceedings (file of attachments to the merits report, attachment 3, folios 388 and 389); letter addressed by the former Director of the Prison to the Manager of the North-Northwest Division of the National Electricity Company on November 14, 2003 (file of attachments to the merits report, attachment 35, folio 554); newspaper article published in “La Prensa,” on May 19, 2004 (file of attachments to the merits report, attachment 36, folio 556), and newspaper article published in “La Prensa” on May 22, 2004 (file of attachments to the merits report, attachment 37, folio 558). 31 Cf. Letter addressed by the Director of the Prison to the Manager of the North-Northwest Division of the National Electricity Company on March 19, 2004 (file of attachments to the merits report, attachment 39, folio 591). 32 Cf. Testimony of Mauricio Abelardo Guardado Rivera, supra note 30, folios 387 to 390. 12