9 the State itself has substantially acknowledged. In this scenario the different principles that take root in a governing concept result applicable: legitimacy and rationality of public measures, as a source for their admission, that to the contrary result excessive, disproportionate, unnecessary, and definitely violate human rights. 36. In order to grab attention regarding these matters, which deserve a deep reflection and immediate corrective measures –and I am not referring only, of course, to the State where the facts object of the conviction that correspond to the present Opinion occurred--, it is worth while remembering the cases in which the Court has examined situations of mistreatment –from serious to extremely serious: including crimes against humanity—in detriment of inmates, either individually or collectively. In this group we have, for example, totally or partially the cases of Loayza Tamayo (1997), Suárez Rosero (1997), Castillo Petruzzi (1999), Cantoral Benavides (2000), Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamín (2002), Maritza Urrutia (2003), Bulacio (2003), Tibi (2004), Lori Berenson (2004), Caesar (2005), Fermín Ramírez (2005), Raxcacó Reyes (2005), García Asto and Ramírez Rojas (2005), and López Alvarez (2006). The disproportionate use of force in circumstances of aggression on groups of detainees or control of collective movements has been examined in the cases of Neira Alegría (1995), Durand Ugarte (2000), Juvenile Reeducation Institute (2004) and Montero Aranguren (2006). We must also take note of the very serious excesses in actions carried out to control freedom, as was warned in the Case of the Caracazo (1999). 37. There has been, in an increasing number and when facing extremely worrying situations, provisional measures adopted by the Court in situations of that same nature: cases of Peruvian Prisons (1992, 1993), Urso Blanco Prison (2004), Children Deprived of Liberty in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of FEBEM (2005, 2006), Persons imprisoned in the “Dr. Sebastiâo Martins Silveira” Penitentiary in Araraquare, Sâo Paulo (2006), Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”), Mendoza Prisons (2006) and Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center (2006). 38. The Judgment in the Case of Castro Castro –as well as others adopted in the course of two years, or less—must grab the attention of our countries, and even of the organization that reunites the American States, with regard to the situation of prisons, the state in which persons deprived of their freedom are found, the deficiencies in the means available for the custody and treatment of the detainees and the generally insufficient preparation of the agents in charge of these tasks or others linked to the control of collective movements, either in reclusion or in liberty. The Judgment of this case refers once more to the need to provide the personnel in charge of them –which should be carefully selected—the preparation they require in order to comply with their duties, which has led –as observed in this Judgment—to a source of massive violations, committed with extraordinary violence. This provision is integrated into the ample concept of the reparations or, better yet, the guarantees of non-repetition, concept that has been developed by the jurisprudence of the Court. Sergio García-Ramírez Judge Pablo Saavedra-Alessandri Secretary