h) All cells must have sufficient natural or artificial light, ventilation and adequate conditions of hygiene;69 i) Latrines must be hygienic and offer privacy;70 j) States cannot claim financial difficulties to justify detention conditions that do not comply with the relevant minimum international standards and that fail to respect the inherent dignity of the human being,71 and k) Disciplinary measures that constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, including corporal punishment,72 prolonged solitary confinement, and any other measure that may severely jeopardize the physical or mental health of the inmate is strictly prohibited.73 68. The Court has also established that, in its role of guarantor, the State must draw up and implement a prison policy for the prevention of emergency situations that may endanger the fundamental rights of the inmates in custody.”74 In this regard, the State must incorporate into the design, structure, construction, improvement, maintenance and operation of detention centers, all the physical mechanisms that minimize the risk of emergency situations or fire and, should these situations occur, ensure that it can react with due diligence, guaranteeing the protection of the inmates or a safe evacuation of the premises.75 These mechanisms include effective systems of fire detection and extinction, alarms,76 and emergency protocols that ensure the safety of those deprived of liberty.77 69. Based on the foregoing, in this case, the State failed to comply with the obligation to guarantee those deprived of liberty in cell No. 19 detention conditions compatible with their personal dignity, in keeping with the relevant international standards. In addition, although aware of a situation of acute risk, the State did not guarantee the rights of the inmates by taking preventive actions, and acting with due diligence when the fire occurred, and this caused traumatic and painful deaths. Hence, the Court has accepted the acknowledgment of responsibility made by Honduras and, consequently, concludes that the 69 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia), supra note 62, para. 146, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 66, para. 315. 70 Cf. Case of López Álvarez, supra note 65, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 66, para. 319. 71 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia), supra note 62, para. 85, and Case of Vélez Loor, supra note 62, para. 198. 72 Cf. Case of Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, para. 70, and Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2009, concerning the request for an advisory opinion submitted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Corporal Punishment for Children, considering paragraph 14. 73 Cf. Case of the Children and Adolescents Deprived of Liberty in the FEBEM “Tatuapé Complex.” Provisional Measures with regard to Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 30, 2005, considering paragraph 13, and Matter of the Socio-educational Internment Unit. Provisional Measures with regard to Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 1, 2011, considering paragraph 21. 74 Cf. Case of the “Children’s Rehabilitation Institute”, supra note 59, para. 178. 75 Cf. Life Safety Code, NFPA-101, adopted by the National Fire Protection Association, Inc., Nueva Orleans, EEUU. Revised by the Standards Council on January 14, 2000, in force as of February 11, 2000, 2012 Edition, points 22.1.1.2.1 and 23.1.1.2.1. 76 Cf. Life Safety Code NFPA, supra note 75, items 23.3.4.4.2, 9.6.3.2 and 23.3.5.4. 77 Cf. United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, supra note 60, Rule No. 32. 21