2 5. The February 5, 2003 note of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) wherein it requested that the State transmit the report on compliance with the provisional measures since the deadline given in operative paragraph four of the June 18, 2002 Order (supra ‘Having Seen’ 1) had already expired. 6. The March 6, 2003 note from the Secretariat where, acting on the Court’s instructions, it indicated that from its examination of the reports and briefs presented by the State and by the Commission subsequent to the Court’s August 29, 2002 Order, the Court was troubled by the allegations of serious incidents (such as deaths, beatings, assaults, torture, threats, electric shocks) at the Urso Branco Prison, as well as problems of various kinds (among them the communication between the inmates and the authorities and the organizations charged with verifying compliance with the measures; the inmates’ fear of providing information; the fact that convicted and unconvicted inmates shared the same space; the nature of the inspections to which visitors to the prison are subjected; the progress made in the investigation into the facts that necessitated adoption of provisional measures in the instant case, in order to identify those responsible and punish them accordingly, etc.). In order to be able to do a thorough examination of the provisional measures ordered by the Court, the latter requested that the State include in its next report, due by April 3, 2003 at the latest, a detailed description of the steps taken to comply with the provisional measures ordered by the Court, and the State’s own comments on the facts and problems alleged in the Commission’s comments. The Court also indicated that once this report was received from the State, the Inter-American Commission would be given a period of time in which to file its comments. 7. The Secretariat’s note of May 1, 2003, in which it requested that, given the seriousness of the events alleged to have occurred in Urso Branco Prison, the State submit the detailed report requested in the previous note of March 6, 2003, which was to have been submitted by April 3, 2003. 8. The State’s August 14, 2003 brief presenting its fourth report on measures adopted, with attachments. The State made no mention of investigation into the facts that necessitated adoption of provisional measures. instructions from the President, the Inter-American Commission was given months in which to submit its comments on that report. the any On two 9. The Commission’s October 14, 2003 brief and attachments, wherein it presented its comments on the State’s fourth report. One of the attachments was the petitioners’ brief; the Commission requested that the account of the facts contained in the petitioners’ brief be regarded as an integral part of the Commission’s comments. 10. The Secretariat’s January 7, 2004 note which, on instructions from the Court en banc, addressed the issue of compliance with these provisional measures. In this note, the Secretariat stated that having examined the information supplied by the Commission and by the State (particularly in the attachments to the State’s fourth report), the Court had noted with concern that, as both parties had alleged, serious incidents had occurred at Urso Branco Prison and that a variety of problems persisted such as: new murders of inmates and unsafe conditions created by overpopulation of the prison facility; new complaints of torture; the fact that in February of this year, many inmates were forced to spend two days and one night nude in the prison yard and were also beaten; unconvicted inmates were incarcerated alongside convicted inmates; medical care was poor, and disciplinary