8 position as a guarantor the State must take up concerning detained persons, stemming from the particular bond of subjection between the inmate and the State. In such situation the general duty of the State to respect and guarantee rights acquires a particular tinge whereby “in order to protect and ensure the[ir] right to life and to humane treatment,” the State is obliged to provide inmates with “[…] the minimum conditions befitting their dignity, for as long as they are interned in detention facilities”6. The Tribunal has also stated that “when the State is dealing with children deprived of their liberty […] it must be all the more diligent and responsible in its role as guarantor and must take special measures based on the principle of the best interests of the child7.” 13. That the Court cannot, when requested provisional measures, consider argument on the merits of the matter it is processing, nor allegations not strictly bearing on the extreme gravity and urgency, and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Any other matter can only be brought forward for consideration by the Court in the course of the pertaining contentious cases8. 14. That this Tribunal observes that improvement and correction of the situation prevailing in all the units making up the Fundação CASA is a process which will require for the State to take short, medium and long term action in order to address the structural problems affecting all the children and adolescents on whom socioeducational measures are enforced there. The duty to take such action derives from the general obligations it has to respect and guarantee rights, which it undertook by ratifying the American Convention. Whether the action taken meets the protection standards set by the Inter-American system is something that must be assessed in due course, that is to say when examining the merits of case 12,328, currently under consideration by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 111; Matter of Urso Branco Prison, supra note 2, Considering Clause 19; Case of Albán Cornejo et al. Judgment by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of the Merits, Reparations and Costs of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, para. 120. 6 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 159; Matter of Urso Branco Prison, supra note 2, Considering Clause 19; and Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, supra note 2, Considering Clause 11. 7 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C. No. 63, para. 63, para. 146 and 191; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 124, 163-164; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 6, para. 160. 8 Cf. Matter of James et al., supra note 2, Considering Clause 6; Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 08, 2008, Considering Clause 10; and Case of the “Globovisión” Television Broadcasting Company. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 21, 2007, Considering Clause 14.