14 Judgment), the State informed that “[the] National University Institute for Penitentiary Studies, [which is] a higher studies center to train the professionals and specialists required by the Venezuelan Penitentiary and Criminologist System[,] [would become] the guiding entity for educational policies in penitentiary matters.” According to the State, “[t]he syllabus design includes training in the various areas necessary to control prisons, inter alia, deontology and an institutional system, psychology applied to security, penitentiary legislation, human rights, toxicology, penitentiary security, disturbance control, introduction to criminalistics, penitentiary sociology, personal defense, among others.” Likewise, the Attorney’s Office would have developed, through that Institute, “training and academic updating policies both for the Institution’s officials and for officials of other agencies related to justice administration.” On the other hand, the Attorney’s Office informed that the “Ombudsman would have[,] through the General Directorate for the Promotion and Dissemination of Human Rights, carried out several promotion, dissemination and training activities regarding human rights for security agents continuously at national level.” 45. That the representatives pointed out that they knew about the “initiatives taken by the Ombudsman regarding training of State armed forces regarding human rights, through specialized courses and workshops in 2008.” However, the representatives indicated that they “had not found any public official information about specialized training courses for prison agents in Venezuela.” Hence, they declared it was “unfortunate that there was evidence of the possible implication of State prison agents in various situations that occurred in penitentiary centers leading to dead inmates after […] alleged confrontations with the armed forces. Thus, for the representatives “no substantial changes have occurred to improve the academic and social conditions of prison agents” and there is a lack of a “comprehensive plan” towards compliance with this obligation.” To that end, they “consider[ed] that the State must, within three (3) months, submit accurate and detailed information about the subjects taught in the penitentiary training programs and the policy for admission and permanence of penitentiary personnel, as well as the specific results and progress made (regarding the number of new trained officials, type of training received, their recruitment process, remuneration and positions at present in the Venezuelan prisons)[,] according to the initiatives to adapt penitentiary centers to international standards in this matter.” 46. That the Commission pointed out that the information provided by the State about training security agents “lacks details about any progress made after the date the [J]udgment of the Inter-American Court was issued.” Therefore, the Commission indicated that “it would be timely to request the State to provide information about the beneficiaries of the above programs and, if applicable, the reasons why the penitentiary personnel would not have been included.” 47. That according to paragraphs 147 to 149 of the Judgment, this obligation includes the following two training issues: 1) training of the members of the security agencies to ensure the effective right to life and avoid the disproportionate use of force, and 2) the design and implementation of a training program on human rights and international standards regarding inmates, addressed to police and prison agents. 48. That it is essential that human rights are known by all to secure their respect and guarantee in a democratic society. To that extent, the authorities in charge of the individuals held in custody on behalf of the State, as well as the members of the police and the armed forces, and the public authorities in general, shall be duly trained in human rights and, if applicable, the international standards regarding individuals held in custody, showing the good results of their training with their daily behavior in performing their tasks and, hence, responding adequately to the requirements of their tasks regarding those individuals.