11. For its part, the Inter-American Commission noted that the State had adopted several measures to try to address the risk situation facing the beneficiaries. It also took cognizance of the State’s willingness to move forward in the implementation of the provisional measures, but considered that, bearing in mind the seriousness of the facts, it is important that the State provide detailed information on the specific incidents referred to by the representatives. 12. The Inter-American Court appreciates the different initiatives undertaken by the State in order to implement the provisional measures in a timely manner and to improve the situation at the Socio-Educational Internment Facility (UNIS) and at other internment facilities. In particular, this Court takes cognizance of the timely implementation of the measures set forth in the inter-institutional agreement previously reported to the Court, and of attempts to coordinate the different organs of the justice system and those that provide assistance to juvenile offenders. Furthermore, the Court highlights the training actions undertaken to strengthen the personnel of the IASES, with the aim of improving the care provided to inmates and preventing risk situations. b) Situation of Risk at the Socio-educational Internment Unit 13. The State reported that between July and December 2011 there were ten incidents of an “extraordinary” or “exceptional” nature, which were duly communicated to the authorities of the justice system. Similarly, during the period from July 2011 to February 2012, there were no recorded incidents of extreme gravity and urgency that could cause irreparable harm to the employees or inmates or affect the order and proper functioning of the IASES units. The State also reported that, regarding the incidents described in the representatives’ previous briefs, the State had already taken steps to properly address each situation reported and had duly arranged for a forensic medical examination of each inmate involved in the different incidents. Furthermore, the recorded incidents were duly dealt with in the context of the Disciplinary Evaluation Commissions and were submitted for investigation by the Comptrollership (Corregedoria) of IASES. 14. In this regard, the representatives stated that at UNIS, and also at most other facilities, disciplinary control continues to be applied using cruel means or in an illegal, arbitrary and improvised manner, without observance of any regulations. They expressed particular concern over the transfer of some beneficiaries of the instant provisional measures to other Units, since this measure continues to be ineffective for protecting their life and personal integrity given that the same types of violent incidents occur at the units to which they were transferred. Regarding the acts of violence that occurred at UNIS subsequent to the Order of September 1, 2011, the representatives mentioned the following: a) several inmates complained that the Unit’s current security coordinator “collectively threatens to lock them up [...] and with the action of the intervention [team].” b) on August 30, 2011 a youth was assaulted by two officers, who almost broke his arm. On September 14 an inmate reported that he was handcuffed in the “Christ position” for four hours and another youth denounced that he was placed face down on the ground and dragged, and that he was subsequently assaulted by officers and suffered injuries to his 5