3 Prison.” Furthermore, it has been proven that the State has not regained control required to safeguard the lives of the inmates; b) the urgent nature of the adoption of provisional measures is based “on preventive reasons and is justified by the existence of a permanent risk of continuing murders within the prison.” There is also a tense situation among the inmates that can generate further deaths. This is worsened by “the existence of weapons in the hands of inmates, overcrowding and [...] lack of control by the Brazilian authorities with respect to the prevailing situation in that prison;” c) the prison population is in constant fear of new violent events, “with respect to which they feel defenseless as the authorities have been unable to prevent the death of dozens of people over the last 5 months;” d) after March 14, 2002, when the Commission requested that the State adopt precautionary measures, “another five people have been murdered within that prison,” which proves that such measures have not attained the effects sought; and e) the State is not complying with the positive obligation of preventing attempts against the life and physical safety of inmates in the Urso Branco Prison, since it has not adopted adequate security measures to avoid murders within that prison. The murder victims were imprisoned under State custody, and the inmates’ living and detainment conditions depended on decisions by the State authorities. Based on the above, the Commission requested that the Court order the State to: 1) Immediately adopt the necessary measures to protect the life and personal safety of all inmates in the José Mario Alves Detainment Center, “Urso Branco Prison,” located in the city of Porto Velho, State of Rondonia, Brazil. 2) Immediately take all necessary measures to seize whatever weapons are in the hands of inmates of that prison. 3) Inform the Honorable Inter-American Court of Human Rights within a brief term, to be set by the Court itself, on the concrete and effective steps taken. 2. In its June 14, 2002 brief, in which the Commission reported that “on June 10, 2002 inmate Evandro Mota de Paula was seriously wounded [...] when the penitentiary agent, in passing the shotgun to a colleague, accidentally set off the trigger, wounding the inmate, who was taken to Joao Paulo II Hospital.” CONSIDERING: 1. Brazil has been a State Party to the American Convention since September 25, 1992 and pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, it recognized the obligatory jurisdiction of the Court on December 10, 1998. 2. Article 63.2 of the American Convention provides that, in “cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court may, in matters not yet submitted to the Court, upon a request by the Commission, order the provisional measures it deems pertinent.