16 Gustavo Unit, located in Lavalle, as well as the person found within these facilities, are still exposed to a situation that puts —or has directly put— their life and personal integrity at stake. Particularly, from the information forwarded by the parties, it can be concluded that —in spite of the good faith and the endeavors taken by State authorities throughout 2005 and up to date— serious acts of violence have taken place, and four persons have died in the former penitentiary center under circumstances not yet fully clear; there were two riots in which the force used to subdue them has been excessive and in which a number of inmates have been injured and/or received different harsh treatments; and that generally, the state of overcrowding and the deterioration levels inside such centers have not undergone any change at all. As emphasized by the Commission, the risk of violent death has not been eradicated; investigations made have not yielded any actual outcome; and deficient conditions of security and internal control are still the same, including lack of segregation of inmates and detainees by categories, and that entry and possession of weapons inside the penitentiary centers is still an issue. These incidents are still happening at present in spite of the effective term of the provisional measures previously ordered by the Court, despite the fact that they have been addressed expressly at the public hearing held on the date hereof in Brasilia (supra, Having Seen Clause No. 50), and although some of them had been noticed by the Jail Oversight Court in determining a number of petitions for habeas corpus. 9. That the Court has already established that the international responsibility of the States within the framework of the American Convention arises from the commission of violations to general erga omnes obligations to respect and caused to be respected and guarantee rules of protections and ensure the efficacy of the rights contemplated therein in all circumstances and in respect of any person, pursuant to Articles 1(1) and (2) of said treaty.5 These general obligations create special duties that may be determined in accordance with the particular needs of protection of any law-abiding subject, whether due to their personal capabilities or to the specific situation they are in. In fact, Article 1(1) of the Convention imposes on every State Party fundamental rights of respect and guarantee of rights, in a manner such that any detriment to human rights acknowledged by the Convention that may be attributed, as per the rules of International Law, to the actions or act of omissions of governmental authorities, amounts to an act attributable to any such State and therefore the State’s international responsibility is compromised pursuant to the terms of the Convention itself and the general provisions of International Law.6 10. That the provision established in Article 63(2) of the Convention makes it compulsory for any State to adopt the provisional measures that may be ordered by this Court, insofar as the States must meet their conventional obligations in good faith in accordance with the basic law principle of international responsibility of the States, which is supported by international case law (pacta sunt servanda). Any breach to the order of enforcement of provisional measures passed by the Court in proceedings before the Commission and the Court may trigger international responsibility of the States.7 5 Cfr. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 2, para. 111; Case of Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 2, para. 111; and Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 140. 6 Cfr.Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 2, para. 111; Case of Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 2, para. 108; Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 2, para. 72.