9 self-flagellation (supra having seen paragraph 8(g)). The overcrowding in this prison is also significant as the number of inmates is more than twice the center’s capacity (supra having seen paragraphs 2(a) and 7(e)(i)). 12. The State underscored its actions since 1999, “faced with a structural prison problem, product of more than two decades of non-existent prison policies that have left a significant mark on structural prison conditions today, which has been taken up as a challenge when formulating humanitarian policies, with the sole aim of treating those deprived of liberty decently.” In addition, the State provided information on specific measures for this prison and, in particular, on the creation of a working group (supra having seen paragraph 7(f)). 13. Although the Court assesses positively the measures taken by the State (supra having seen paragraph 7(a)) in this matter, specific acts have occurred that have jeopardized the life and physical integrity of the persons deprived of liberty, while the only relevant measure that the State has adopted was, reportedly, a working meeting held on April 7, 2011, to gain a direct understanding of the problems at the prison (supra having seen paragraph 7(f)). The State has not submitted the minutes of the meeting or advised of any results, or of the measures agreed or to be adopted to address the violence and overcrowding, and the climate of instability and conflict within the facility. Furthermore, the Court observes that the so-called “blood strike” was staged after the above-mentioned measures were taken by the State. 14. Consequently, to date, the measures taken by the State do not appear to be sufficient or effective to protect the life and physical integrity of this prison community. Thus, the irreparable nature of the situation of extremely grave and urgent danger is evident in relation to the rights to life and physical integrity that the Court has the obligation to protect when the requirements established by Article 63(2) of the American Convention are met. 15. Consequently, the Court considers it necessary to protect these individuals through the State’s immediate adoption of provisional measures in light of the provisions of the American Convention, in order to prevent efficiently and definitively the violence, loss of life, and harm to the physical, mental and moral integrity of those deprived of liberty in the facility, and of any other persons therein. 16. It is also appropriate to recall that Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligations of States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms enshrined therein and to guarantee their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. These obligations are essential not only in relation to the power of the State, but also with regard to the actions of third parties. This Court has considered that the State occupies a special position as guarantor in relation to those deprived of liberty because prison authorities exercise total control over them. The Court has also indicated that, irrespective of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is especially obliged to guarantee the rights of those deprived of liberty;8 this includes adopting measures that promote a climate of respect for the human rights of the inmates amongst themselves, preventing the presence of weapons controlled by inmates in the prison, reducing overcrowding, improving detention conditions, and providing enough trained personnel to ensure adequate and effective control, custody, and supervision inside the detention center. 8 Cf. Matter of the Capital Detention Center El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II., supra note 4, eleventh considering clause; Matter of the Socio-educational Detention Unit, supra note 3, fourteenth considering clause, and Matter of the Aragua Detention Center “Tocorón Prison”, supra note 2, twelfth considering clause.