8 do their job. The petitioners noted that on May 4, 2004, there was an “occupation” of the prison by 300 military police, after which the Justice and Peace Commission received calls from a number of relatives of the inmates to report that a number of prisoners had been wounded. However, the press and human rights organizations were not permitted inside Urso Branco Prison until May 11, 2004, where they observed the poor hygienic conditions, confirmed that there was no evidence that reconstruction of the prison had gotten underway, found that many inmates had been assaulted and that tensions among inmates, police and prison agents were running very high; d) the list of inmates that the State supplied reported each one’s legal situation; however, it did not report whether convicted and unconvicted inmates are being housed in separate quarters. According to the petitioners, the inmates (convicted and unconvicted alike) are mixed together in the same cells, which was one of the causes of the “slaughter” that happened in 2002, and caused the death of another five provisional inmates during the April 2004 riot. As for the State’s report to the effect that prisoners had been transferred and the overpopulation at the Urso Branco Prison eased, the petitioners pointed out that during the April 2004 riot, much of the cellblocks was destroyed, which considerably reduced the prison’s physical capacity. Furthermore, 830 prisoners are confined in two cellblocks and two “churches”, as that is the only space that was not destroyed. Therefore, each cell is holding approximately 30 prisoners, and e) as for the investigation into the facts that necessitated the adoption of provisional measures, only the deaths that occurred during the slaughter of 27 inmates in 2002 are being effectively investigated by the Prosecutor’s Office; investigation of the other homicides is just getting underway with the special delegations. The petitioners also noted that although the investigation into the 2002 “slaughter” was concluded, the Office of the Attorney General had still not decided whether to prefer charges against the State authorities involved in the matter, despite the fact that the investigations found “each and every one culpable.” 20. The amicus curiae brief filed via e-mail on June 24, 2004 by the Clínica de Direitos Humanos SUR –Rede Universitária de Direitos Humanos y Conectas Direitos Humanos, in regard to these provisional measures. The original of this brief was submitted on June 29, 2004. 21. The Court’s June 28, 2004 Order wherein it resolved: 1. To commission the President, Judge Sergio García-Ramírez; Judge Antônio A. Cançado-Trindade and Judge Manuel E. Ventura-Robles to conduct the public hearing convoked for June 28, 2004 at the seat of the Court. 2. To report this [...] Order to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the petitioners requesting the provisional measures and the State. 22. The public hearing on the present provisional measures, held at the seat of the Inter-American Court on June 28, 2004, where the following appeared: for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Florentín Meléndez, Delegate;