11 c. Security controls are deficient and management of prisons is erratic in the hands of the custody bodies as the incidents that have taken place inside the cellblocks have passed unnoticed to the authorities. Furthermore, the use of force to quell riots has been excessive; d. Judicial authorities have allowed two petitions for habeas corpus presented by the representatives and several inmates and their families, in connection with prolonged periods of confinement and sanitary and health care issues; e. The severity of the situation has been acknowledged by the highest Argentine authorities; f. It is necessary to take measures as part of an integral reform, such as more skilled personnel, proper cellblock lighting, actions against overcrowding, segregation of convicted prisoners from untried detainees, sanitary measures for the provision of proper toilets and drinking water for the use by the inmates, and barring of entrance of weapons to the facility; g. Overcrowding is not fought against by building new cellblocks but also by providing for measures as an alternative to pretrial detention; h. The agreed-upon short-term commitments as per the record signed in Asunción have not been met. In this regard: i. the Commission acknowledges the recruitment of new penitentiary agents, but the profile and training status of said new employees are unknown; ii. Investigations are not carried out effectively or impartially, and the system does not provide for legal, criminal penalties, it only provides for disciplinary actions. Furthermore, the legislative and governmental provincial authorities have taken a fairly passive stance when compared to judicial authorities’ involvement; iii. Follow-up Commission entrusted with provisional measures is inactive; iv. In spite of the fact that the Commission acknowledges that the number of deaths has decreased, the severe risk of violent death has not been eradicated; i. The Commission requests that the Court make use of all its conventional power to enforce the provisional measures, and force the State’s both national and provincial governments to assume their responsibility, j. This case is not about determining who should be held internationally responsible when dealing with a federal State, as this issue has already been dealt with in the Convention and previous court decisions;