11 “goes far beyond that[,] including international standards about the use of force, penitentiary surveillance of a civil nature[,] establishing an effective mechanism before a competent, independent and impartial agency for any claims of human rights violation against individuals held in custody and the mechanisms to ensure that human rights violations are not investigated by the military justice.” 32. That Paragraph 144 of the Court’s Judgment indicated that Venezuela had to adapt its domestic laws to the provisions of the American Convention so that they a) adequately conform to international legal standards on the use of force by law enforcement officers; b) take action to implement a surveillance penitentiary service of nonmilitary nature; c) secure an efficient procedure or system to file petitions before competent, impartial and independent authorities for the investigation of complaints on human rights violations filed by inmates, in particular, on illegal use of force exerted by state agents; and d) secure that the investigations of human rights violations be carried out by ordinary prosecutors and judges instead of military prosecutors and judges. 33. That the State informed about certain legislative initiatives it has implemented (National Police Law, Criminal Procedural Organic Code and General Attorney Organic Law) and it was going to pass the Penitentiary System Organic Code (supra Considering clause 29). Nevertheless, it did not indicate the status of approval of such Penitentiary System Organic Code nor how such legislative initiatives are in line specifically with compliance with the four issues mentioned in paragraph 144 of the Judgment (supra Considering clause 32). 34. That consequently, the State must inform this Court in a detailed and specific manner about any measures to be adopted in order to adapt the domestic laws of Venezuela to conform to the American Convention in relation to the four issues mentioned in paragraph 144 of the Judgment. * * * 35. That as regards to the obligation to adopt, within a reasonable time, the necessary measures so that prison conditions conform to international standards in that matter (operative paragraph 10 of the Judgment), the State informed that “during [the years] 2004, 2005 and 2006, it started actions to improve the penitentiary situation with an annual operating plan called [‘]Penitentiary Humanization Plan[’], focused on ‘the infrastructure, sport, work, health, human resources and education and training of inmates’.” Likewise, the State referred to the “census of the juridical conditions of inmates in the various prisons [during 2005] which allowed for an update of each one of the existing trials”; as well as “psycho-social assessments [in order to] accelerate the process of granting […] alternative formulas to comply with the punishment.” In order to improve “detention conditions” and solve the overcrowding situation, the State pointed out in its report of June 4, 2008 that “it considered the construction and opening of fourteen (14) penitentiary communities within 5 years.” It also informed about “[t]he development of a technological computing system for penitentiary management and the implementation of new access control systems” that “would avoid entering weapons, drugs, explosives and any other banned objects [in penitentiary centers].” On the other hand, the State mentioned the creation, under decree No[.] 6.553 of December 15, 2008, of the Higher Penitentiary Council, as a “national guiding body, in charge of designing and preparing structural policies for a comprehensive consideration of the Penitentiary System” and the creation, through Resolution No[.] 789 of August 7, 2008, of ten (10) new Prosecutor’s Offices at National Level Competent in the Penitentiary System. It also stated that at present “there are twenty-six Prosecutor’s Offices which know and act in the implementation stage of the judgment and in the supervision of