15. The representatives also presented information concerning threats and acts of violence committed by officers against the adolescents, as well as rebellions and arbitrary use of disciplinary sanctions in other units of the IASES, specifically at the UNIMETRO, UNIP, Xuri and Linhares units. Furthermore, the representatives asserted that the State has not complied 16. with the terms of the Court Order of September 1, 2011, and expressed concern over the “absolute lack of compliance” with the ruling of the Court requiring the State to ensure that the disciplinary system is consistent with applicable international standards. In this regard, the representatives also pointed out that, in its report of April 12, 2012, the Office of the Public Defender stated that “there are signs of torture within this Unit, since the practices are similar to those defined in Law No. 9.455 [Law on Torture].” The situation of extreme gravity, urgency and the need to prevent irreparable harm to persons persists, and therefore they requested that the provisional measures remain in force so that the State adopts more effective measures to achieve compliance. 17. The representatives also pointed out that the inmates refrain from denouncing cases of abuse and violence by officers for fear of reprisals or the loss of benefits, such as access to television, or punishment in isolation cells. Furthermore, as a general rule, the incidents denounced by the representatives are not rigorously investigated. In many inquiries to which the representatives had access, “the socioeducational and security officers were [not] questioned after episodes of violence, which makes it difficult and even impossible to investigate the legality of their actions.” In some cases, the adolescents are not summoned to give evidence in the proceedings, and in other cases in which several inmates are involved, only some of them undergo the legal medical examination. 18. The Commission expressed its concern over the information presented by the representatives and regarding the acts of violence on the part of the state agents. It noted that even though the State had reported on the structural measures taken, it had not provided detailed information about the situation of the beneficiaries of the measures who had been transferred to other centers or the acts of violence that occurred in other units. Furthermore, it noted with concern the continued use of punishment cells, employed at the officers’ discretion, where inmates would be left to “reflect” for several days. In addition, it indicated that there is information regarding collective punishments applied to the inmates, as well as at least two suicide attempts at the Socio-Educational Internment Unit. Although the State had taken some measures to try to remedy the risk situation facing the beneficiaries, “it still does not have control over UNIS” and the situation of extreme gravity and urgency continues, representing a situation of imminent risk to the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries. Taking into account the gravity of the facts, the Commission considered that “it is not appropriate to lift the present provisional measures, but rather to extend them.” 19. The Court notes that the State adopted measures aimed at improving security and reducing violence at the UNIS, including the decentralization of socio-educational care, the continuous training of officers and conducting inquiries on the incidents denounced and taking certain measures to implement the Agreement for the Improvement of Socio-Educational Attention (Supra Considering paragraph 7). However, the Court takes cognizance of the concern expressed by the representatives in relation to the efficacy of some of the measures adopted by the 8