9 8. This Court has studied the report submitted by the State (supra “Having seen” 4) and the observations of the Commission on said report (supra “Having seen” 5). 9. Information supplied by the Inter-American Commission in its brief with observations on the report submitted by the State (supra “Having seen” 5), regarding certain grave facts that have taken place at the Urso Branco Prison to the detriment of the inmates after the Court ordered provisional measures in its June 18, 2002 Order, demonstrates prima facie that there is a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that makes it reasonable to presume that the life and safety of the inmates at the Urso Branco Prison continues to be at grave risk and highly vulnerable. Therefore, the State must be ordered to adopt, forthwith, whatever provisional measures are necessary to protect the life and personal safety of all inmates at the prison. 10. The Court deems it pertinent and necessary, so as to protect the life and personal safety of the inmates at the Urso Branco Prison, for conditions at that penitentiary to be in accordance with applicable international standards for protection of human rights.4 Specifically, the Court deems that there should be a separation among categories, so that “[t]he different categories of prisoners shall be kept in separate [...] parts of institutions taking account of [...] the legal reason for their detention and the necessities of their treatment,”5 and “[u]ntried prisoners shall be kept separate from convicted prisoners.”6 Likewise, regarding discipline and punishment, it should be underlined that penitentiary officers “shall not, in their relations with the prisoners, use force except in self-defense or in cases of attempted escape, or active or passive physical resistance to an order based on law or regulations”7, and that “Corporal punishment, punishment by placing in a dark cell, and all cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments [are] completely prohibited as punishments for disciplinary offences.”8 THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, by virtue of the authority conferred to it by Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 25 of its Rules of Procedure, 4 See Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case. June 21, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 94, para. 217. 5 See United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted at the First United Nations Congress on Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Prisoners, held in Geneva in 1955, and adopted by the Economic and Social Council through its resolutions 663C (XXIV) of July 31, 1957, and 2076 (LXII) of May 13, 1977, rule number 8. 6 See United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, supra note 5, rules number 8.b) and 85.1). 7 United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, supra note 5, rule number 54.1). 8 United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, supra note 5, rule number 31.