13. The note of February 18, 2011, in which, as per the instructions of the President of the Court, the State and the Inter-American Commission were asked to submit any comments they considered pertinent on the representatives’ reports and requests by no later than February 25, 2011, in order to provide the information to the Court during its 90th regular period of sessions. 14. The brief of February 25, 2011, whereby the Inter-American Commission indicated that the State “had not provided precise and detailed information on compliance with […] the measures,” took note “of the measure of house arrest imposed on the beneficiary” and argued “that the urgent measures ordered by the President of the Court […] should be ratified by the full Court, since they are applicable to the beneficiary’s current situation, and taking into consideration that she remains in State custody.” 15. The brief of February 26, 2011, in which the State reported on compliance with the measures ordered in the President’s Order and responded to the request for the broadening of the protective measures (supra Having Seen 12.) The State described the request of national Prosecutors 13 and 32, under the Office of Protection of Fundamental Rights of the Office of the Attorney General,6 “toward ensuring effective compliance” with the provisions of the Order of the President. The request recommended that the precautionary measure substituting deprivation of freedom for the beneficiary be granted. Based on this, the Twenty-Sixth Court of Caracas decided to accept the recommendations and ordered Judge Afiuni be placed under house arrest. The State also expressed that Judge Afiuni’s trusted physician took part in the surgery performed on her. Finally, it confirmed the adoption of the substitional measures of freedom ordered by the Twenty-Sixth Court of Caracas, as described by the petitioners (supra Having Seen 12), and it added that the beneficiary’s representatives filed an appeal against some of the measures in question, meaning that the representatives may freely exercise the remedies they deemed pertinent before the courts having jurisdiction, in keeping with the nation’s laws. In conclusion, the State requested that the Court: a) assess and consider “the actions taken by State entities such as the Attorney General’s Office, the Ombudsman’s Office, the Courts of the Republic and agencies whose mission is to protect and defend the State in strict compliance with the measures imposed initially by the Inter-American Commission and subsequently […] by the President of the Court, […] in compliance with the effective protection of [Ms. Afiuni’s] human rights,” with her requests that her trusted physicians be involved in her medical care, diagnosis and treatment, and with regard to compliance with the visitation regimen during the period of detention at the INOF, “special for this person, as this is a case of public significance;” b) dismiss the ratification of the urgent measures adopted by the President, as the Twenty-Sixth Court of Caracas issued a ruling “based on humanitarian reasons related to the poor health of Ms. Afiuni” and ordered she be placed under house arrest, “eliminating the central argument” of the petitioners for the granting of these urgent measures; and 6 In case 26-J-486-10 on Ms. Afiuni, in which they indicated that considering the health of Judge Afiuni and the recognition of health as a ‘fundamental right, inalienable and defensible by all State structures,’ the Ombudsman’s Office is responsible to ‘actively intervene in human rights matters.’ 14