8 2. With regard to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. […] 6. The beneficiaries of urgent measures or provisional measures ordered by the President may address their comments on the report made by the State directly to the Court. The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights shall present observations to the State’s report and to the observations of the beneficiaries or their representatives. […] 4. That, in the Order of July 4, 2006, the Inter-American Court reiterated to the State that it should immediately adopt “the necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of all the children and adolescents institutionalized at the FEBEM Tatuapé Complex [of the CASA Foundation], as well as that of all the persons within it.” 5. That, from the information provided by the State, the representatives, and the Commission (supra Having seen paragraphs 3, 4 and 5), it is clear that, although the State has adopted certain measures to improve the detention conditions, and although the violent incidents have decreased, there is still a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, which could result in irreparable damage to the rights to life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries of these measures. In particular, acts of violence among the inmates has been verified, such as the death of the youth, Ricardo Pereira Cunha, which occurred on May 28, 2006, as well as possible acts of aggression perpetrated by the security agents and new uprisings, which have resulted in injuries to several inmates. 6. That, based on the responsibility of the States to adopt safety measures to protect all persons subject to their jurisdiction, the Court finds that this obligation is particularly evident in the case of individuals confined in a detention center, in which case the State is the guarantor of the rights of those who are in its custody.1 7. That the obligation of the States to protect all persons subject to their jurisdiction includes the obligation to control the actions of private third parties; an obligation erga omnes.2 8. That the protection of the life of the child “requires the State to pay special attention to the conditions of a child’s life while it is deprived of liberty, because this right has not extinguished or been restricted owing to detention or imprisonment.”3 1 Cf. Matter of the Urso Branco Prison. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 18, 2002, ninth considering paragraph; Matter of Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, ninth considering paragraph; and the matter of the Monagas Judicial Detention Center (“La Pica”). Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 9, 2006, ninth considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Matter of Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center. Provisional measures, supra note 5, fourteenth considering paragraph; Matter of the Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”). Provisional measures, supra note 1, sixteenth considering paragraph; Matter of the Children Deprived of liberty in the “Complexo do Tataupé” of FEBEM. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, ninth considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 126; Matter of the Children Deprived of liberty in the “Complexo do Tataupé” of FEBEM. Provisional measures. supra note 2,