31 94. Furthermore, by not allowing the victims to participate in productive activities because it regarded them as members of the “mara salvatrucha,” the State violated Article 5(6) of the American Convention to the detriment of the 107 persons named in paragraph 12 of this report, in conjunction with the obligations undertaken in Article 1(1) of the Convention. 95. It is a proven fact, not contested by the State, that the sole criterion for the segregation of the inmates housed in Cellblock 19 of the San Pedro Sula Prison, was their presumed membership in the so-called “mara salvatrucha.” The Commission observes that their segregation might have been reasonable given the disputes that this gang had with other groups, especially the so-called “paisas” (inmates that did not belong to any gang) who far outnumbered the gang members. However, this is no justification for the fact that convicted inmates were co-mingled with accused inmates, regardless of whether they were supposedly all members of the same gang. 96. The petitioners in the present case note that at the time of the fire, at least 45 of the young men who died were in preventive detention. Here again, this claim has not been refuted by the State. However, of those 45, only 22 are identified as being on trial for unlawful association: 80 Andrés Enrique Zepeda, Darwin Geovany López Medina, Edwing Alberto Guzmán, Eleazar Machado Figueroa, Edgardo Alejandro Hernández, Eddy Adalberto Amaya Zepeda, Esmelin Teruel Fernández, Ixel Alfredo Medina, Jesús Aguilar Leiva, José Antonio Morales, José Antonio Rodríguez, Luis Alberto Escobar Vallecillo, Maynor Juaquín Ardón López, Marco Josué Sierra, Melvin Isaías López Recarte, Miguel Eduardo Mercado, Miguel Ángel Pérez Godoy, Mario Roberto Velásquez Dubón, Nelson Rafael Ortega Martínez, Oscar Israel Duarte Valle, Pedro Hernán Tabora Castillo and Víctor David Torres Funez. 97. In this sense, the Inter-American Commission reiterates that by virtue of the principal of innocence, within the framework of the penal process, the accused should remain free as a general rule 81 . On the other hand, the Inter-American Court has established that The preventive detention is limited by the principles of legality, the presumption of innocence, need, and proportionality, all of which are strictly necessary in a democratic society. It is the most severe measure that can be applied to the person accused of a crime, reason for which its application must have an exceptional nature. The rule must be the defendant’s liberty while a decision is made regarding his criminal responsibility 82 . 98. It is precisely the principal of innocence that went into the preparing of Art. 5.4 of the American Convention, a general rule that those accused and being processed are separated from those already convicted and they are “treated adequately as a person who has not been convicted yet.” This distinction in quality of the conditions of detention of those being processed has been developed extensively in other international instruments, such as the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners (art. 84 and art.93) and the U.N. Joint Principals for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (principals 36 and 39). 99. Therefore, the Commission finds that the State has incurred international responsibility for violation of Article 5(4) of the American Convention, in conjunction with the 80 The petitioners’ observations on the merits, dated April 10, 2009. 81 IACHR, Report No. 86/09, Merits, Case 12.553, Jorge, José y Dante Peirano Basso, Uruguay, August 6, 2009. 82 I/A Court H.R., Case of López-Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 01, 2006. Series C No. 141, párr. 67; I/A Court H.R., Case of Acosta-Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, párr. 74; I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, párr. 106.