13 11. That regarding the responsibility of the State for the adoption of security measures in order to protect those persons subject to its jurisdiction, the Court has already established that this duty is more evident since these persons are detained in the state detention centers, and under such circumstances the State plays a special role as guarantor of the rights of the persons that remain under its custody.3 Furthermore, “one of the unavoidable obligations that the State has to assume in its capacity as guarantor, with the purpose of protecting and securing the right to life and physical integrity of the persons that have been deprived of their liberty, is that of providing such persons with the minimum decent conditions while they remain in the detention centers”.4 12. That the State informed that, after the riot, those inmates that were ill or injured were referred to other penitentiary centers. Next, those that had not taken part in the riot were transferred. Those inmates that had been involved in the riot would be transferred in the last place in order not to hinder de advance of the administrative investigation seeking to identify and punish those responsible for the riot. The State further informed that the military police forces entered the Araraquara Penitentiary to provide assistance to ill inmates, transfer detainees and keep order. It further stated that the Penitentiary has medical staff, two dentists, one nurse, one nursing technician and one nursing assistant, who delivered prescribed medicines to the inmates that needed them twice a day, in the mornings and at night; it also added that there had not been a shortage of food, clothes or products for personal hygiene. The State also informed that, as of the date of submission of its report, 434 inmates had been referred to other penitentiaries and that the detainees remaining in the Araraquara Penitentiary had been relocated in three separate sectors. 13. That the Commission and the representatives, in their objections to the report filed by the State, pointed out that, even after the Order of the President dated July 28, 2006, and while they were at the Araraquara Penitentiary, the beneficiaries remained in an open yard without the presence of any State officers to keep order. Many of them suffered from serious illnesses and medical conditions such as hepatitis B and C, ulcers, HIV/AIDS, umbilical hernia, auricular infections, eye infections and severe hemorrhoids and were not receiving adequate medical assistance. They further stated that food provided was not enough or adequate since the inmates themselves had to prepare it and that the water available might be contaminated by the presence of glass pieces and roaches wings. The minimum conditions for a decent life were not being protected, there were no appropriate places for the inmates to sleep and there were not enough products for their personal hygiene. The beneficiaries were not allowed to contact their next of kin or their attorneys. No administrative or judicial investigation was conducted in order to determine those responsible for the generation and maintenance of the detention conditions that the beneficiaries had to endure. There was only an administrative 3 Cf. Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of FEBEM. Provisional Measures supra note 2, Considering clause No. 7; Matter of Urso Branco Prison, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2005, Considering clause No. 6; and Matter of the Mendoza Prisons, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 18, 2005, Considering clause No. 6. 4 Cf. Matter of the Mendoza Prisons, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights dated March 30, 2006, Considering clause No. 7; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 159.