death of the 107 victims, as a result of a series of omissions by the authorities (supra paras. 29 to 50), including the specific conditions of Cell No. 19 and the negligence of the authorities to prevent the fire. Moreover, regarding the right to humane treatment, the State is responsible for the violation of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convection, because the said inmates suffered many of the detention conditions characterized as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and also because of the way in which these inmates died, which constituted a violation of the right to humane treatment, incompatible with respect for human dignity. The State also violated Article 5(6) of the Convention, by not allowing the inmates to carry out productive activities, considering them to be members of the Salvatrucha Mara. Lastly, the State violated Article 5(4) of the Convention, to the detriment of the 22 inmates subject to pre-trial detention for the offense of unlawful association, who shared the same cell as inmates who had been sentenced and convicted. In addition, the State violated Article 5(1) of the Convention to the detriment of the group of 83 individualized next of kin, owing to the suffering inherent in the ill-treatment of those who died during the fire, the delay in the procedures to identify and claim the bodies in the morgue, and the authorities’ lack of action to clarify and establish responsibilities for the facts.55 61. Regarding Articles 7, 9 and 2 of the American Convention, the State acknowledged that Legislative Decree 117-2003, which reformed article 332 of the Honduran Criminal Code, concerning the so-called “Anti-Maras Law,” failed to specify the elements of the activity that would be considered punishable, which resulted in these elements being determined in an arbitrary and discretionary manner by the authorities responsible for enforcing the law. This norm opened up a broad margin of discretionality that permitted the arbitrary detention of individuals based on perceptions of their membership in a mara. In this regard, the lack of legal mechanisms or criteria for verifying the actual existence of an unlawful conduct implied that the said Decree did not fulfill the requirement of maximizing safeguards to ensure that the State's punitive power was administered with respect for the fundamental rights. Therefore, this reform violated the principle of legality established in Article 9 of the Convention. Moreover, the detentions carried out on the basis of the said legal reform following the patterns described above were arbitrary under the provisions of Article 7(3) of the American Convention, all of the above in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument. 56 62. Regarding the rights to judicial guarantees and protection established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the State acknowledged that the facts of this case remain in impunity and that this violates the right of the next of kin of the victims and fosters the chronic repetition of human rights violations. In addition, all the procedural actions taken by the Honduran judicial authorities were aimed at establishing the criminal responsibility of the director of the San Pedro Sula Prison at the time of the fire. In this regard, the court’s 55 For their part, in their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives agreed with the Commission’s arguments and added that the State allowed the prison to become a dangerous place for the life and security of the inmates. In addition, the State failed to comply with its obligation of prevention by designing strategies for emergency situations, even though it was aware of the conditions of the prison infrastructure. 56 In this regard, in their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives indicated that the amendment of article 332 of the Penal Code was discriminatory and contradicted the principle of equality. Owing to a deficient juridical and legislative procedure, the amendment took advantage of ambiguous categories that led to arbitrary and discretional interpretation criteria, so that it also violated the principle of legality. In addition, they asserted that the said amendment aimed at a criminal law based on authorship by defining and punishing matters relating to personality, appearance, conduct, image and group affiliation, rather than to specific acts or damage “against others,” and that it was based on a rationale of suspicion as a presumption for the enforcement of the law. Since unlawful association is a continuing offense, it implied “permanent flagrancy”; thus, the said individuals who were charged with this offense could be detained or their homes could be searched at any hour of the day, without any legal guarantee or support in their favor. 18