2(d)(xxi)). Moreover, the female prison population of the prison’s annex had been “kidnapped” by the inmates on two occasions. Likewise, the information indicates that the recent violent acts could have had particular consequences for the female inmates, such as “miscarriages as a result of the climate of tension” (supra having seen paragraph 2(d)(xiii). 11. According to the information provided by the Commission, the State had adopted certain measures in order to protect the life and physical integrity of said prison population (supra having seen paragraphs 2(d)(iii), 2(d)(viii), 2(d)(xi) and 2(d)(xxii)); however, this did not prevent the violent events from occurring. In addition, the Court takes notes and considers, for the purpose of adopting this Order, based on Article 27(5) of the Court's Rules of Procedure, that the State was requested to forward its observations regarding this request for measures, as well as any other documentation it deems pertinent and, to date, the Court has not received said observations (supra having seen paragraph 6). It is relevant to recall that the State must, without fail, respond and provide information whenever the organs of the inter-American system of Human Rights request so for the effective operation of the regional mechanism of protection.8 The lack of response by the State allows the assumption that the situation of risk reported still persists. Therefore due to the irreparable nature of the extremely serious and urgent situation of risk related to the rights to life and physical integrity, it is evident that the Court has the obligation to protect whenever there are circumstances present such as those described in Article 63(2) of the American Convention. 12. Consequently, the Court considers it is necessary to protect said persons by means of the immediate adoption of provisional measures by the State, in light of the terms of the American Convention, in order to adopt all measures necessary to avoid, in an effective and definitive manner, the occurrence of violent acts that affect or put at risk the life and physical integrity of the inmates at CEPRA and of any other person inside this facility. 13. Moreover, it is appropriate to recall that Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligations of the State Parties to respect the rights and freedoms therein enshrined and to ensure the full and free exercise of those rights and freedoms to every person subject to such jurisdiction; such obligations are binding not only on States but also on third parties. This Court has considered that the State is in a special position of guarantor of inmates in penitentiaries or detention centers, due to the fact that penitentiary authorities exercise total control over them. Moreover, the Court has sustained that regardless of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is specially obliged to guarantee the rights of the people in circumstances of deprivation of liberty,9 including the adoption of measures that may favor a climate of respect for the human rights of prisoners; avoid the possession of weapons by inmates inside the detention centers; reduce overcrowding; improve detention conditions and provide 8 Cf. Matter of A. J. et al. Provisional Measures with regard to Haiti. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2009, ninth considering paragraph, and Case of González Medina and next-ofkin. Provisional Measures with regard to the Dominican Republic. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2011, twelfth considering paragraph. 9 Cf. Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures with regard to Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 22, 2007, sixteenth considering paragraph. Matter of the Socio-Educational Internment Facility. Provisional Measures with regard to Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 26, 2012, twenty-second considering paragraph. 8