12 manner, as well as for the unreasonable use of weapons and the chaos in the use of ammunition, facts which must be under the State supervision; the Commission further expressed its concern for the hiring of agents who would not be prepared for that position. On the other hand, it positively assessed the transfer of the main leaders of the mutinies to other prisons, a measure which decreases the possibility of violence with resulting deaths at the Penitentiary. It observes that it is important to take into account that in the searches effected by prison guards, they continue to find cutting and thrusting weapons at the penitentiary, fact which potentially propitiates a situation of constant risk. Consequently, apart from the installation of the above mentioned security electronic equipment, the State must continue to perform said searches in order to control the possession of weapons and other unauthorized objects in possession of the prisoners. 20. That the Commission stated not to have any information, among other aspects, about: a) the separation between convicted and indicted inmates; b) the participation of the Military Police in the custody of the external part of the Penitentiary; c) the appointment of shifts to guards, their training, the training frequency and the results thereof; d) the equipment available for prison guards in order to perform their tasks; e) the performance, in the last months, of searches for unauthorized objects; f) the removal of detainees from the celões (large cells) and g) the situation of the detainees who were shot in the episode of cell H4. 21. That the Court observes that the State adopted measures in order to improve the security and to reduce violence at the Penitentiary, among which the following can be mentioned: increase in the proportion between agents and detainees, installation of security equipment in order to control access to the Penitentiary and the visits -both periodic and without prior notice- by judicial authorities to the Urso Branco Prison. Likewise, the Court notices that since December, 2007, no violent deaths or mutinies have taken place at the Penitentiary. 22. That, on the other hand, since the issue of the last Court Order in the instant case on May 2, 2008, the Court has been informed on at least: a) two episodes of torture against inmate W.R.X. and to the detriment of the sixteen detainees in cell F6; b) one attempt of rebellion, and c) firearm shots against four detainees of cell H4. Additionally, inmates have informed alleged sexual abuses on the part of other inmates under the custody of the State, as well as other acts of physical aggression, intimidation and harassment on the part of security guards, which were allegedly not informed to the judicial authorities because the victims are afraid of the retaliations. From the information provided by the parties, it can be noticed that the security agents preparation would be deficient and, at some occasions, force was allegedly used in an excessive and unjustified manner (supra Considering clauses No. 16.iv and 18). In view of that, the Court again states that the State must provide the beneficiaries the corresponding protection to their physical integrity, in accordance with what has been ordered by means of these provisional measures. 23. That the alleged facts of violence occurred at the prison evidence the persistence of the situation of extreme gravity and urgency, and that the recent claims of torture and other aggressions attributed to State agents or to other inmates within the penitentiary represent a situation of imminent risk against the life and physical integrity of the persons confined at Urso Branco. In that sense, the Court has pointed out that the State is responsible for keeping the Prison in control with absolute respect for the human rights of those confined thereat, which includes the obligation to avoid risk against their life or physical integrity.