30 To this end, the institution should utilize all the remedial, educational, moral, spiritual and other forces and forms of assistance which are appropriate and available, and should seek to apply them according to the individual treatment needs of the prisoners. (Rule 59). 89. For their part, the Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas are premised on the concept that “punishments consisting of deprivation of liberty shall have as an essential aim the reform, social re-adaptation and personal rehabilitation of those convicted; their reintegration into society and family life; as well as the protection of both the victims and society.” 76 90. As the Inter-American Commission observed, the priorities of the public policies on citizen security that the Member States of the region put into practice for citizen security should be measures to prevent violence and crime, which should include individualized measures and programs directed at persons who are serving a prison sentence. 77 91. The State, for its part, has not contested the petitioners’ allegations regarding the detention conditions of the victims in the present case or the treatment they received as a consequence of the segregation regime to which they were subjected within the San Pedro Sula Prison. On the contrary, the State has tried to explain away these problems by alleging the country’s lack of resources. 92. The Inter-American Court has held that “the States cannot invoke economic hardships to justify imprisonment conditions that do not respect the inherent dignity of human beings.” 78 The Human Rights Committee of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has written that “Treating all persons deprived of their liberty with humanity and with respect for their dignity is a fundamental and universally applicable rule. Consequently, the application of this rule, as a minimum, cannot be dependent on the material resources available in the State party.” 79 The Commission therefore considers that under the international law of human rights, a State’s claim of a lack of resources does not relieve it of its responsibility to provide general conditions of detention that are compatible with respect for the human dignity and personal integrity of the persons deprived of liberty, as its role of guarantor demands. 93. The Commission therefore concludes that the State is responsible for violation of articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations to respect and ensure undertaken in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the 107 victims named in paragraph 12 of this report. 76 Document approved by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights at its 131st session, March 3 to 14, 2008. Preamble. 77 IACHR, Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights, approved on December 31, 2009, paragraph 155. In this report the Commission also writes that: “The obligations that the Member States have undertaken vis-à-vis the human rights directly at stake in public policies on citizen security make it incumbent upon them to design and put into practice programs to bring their codes of criminal procedure, infrastructure, and the human and material resources assigned to the prison system to a level that guarantees that sentences delivered by courts of law are served under conditions that strictly conform to international standards in this area. The Commission must underscore that no plan or program to prevent and control violence and crime can succeed if it fails to make the issue of the prison system part of a public policy on citizen security.”(Paragraph 157). 78 I/A Court H.R., Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia). Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, paragraph 85; I/A Court H.R., Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 169, paragraph 88. 79 UN. General Comment No. 21 of the Human Rights Committee, April 10, 1992. A/47/40(SUPP), paragraph 4.