State should provide to those persons subject to its jurisdiction, and incompatible with the order for provisional measures issued by this Court. In this regard, the Court has indicated that it is incumbent on the State to maintain its control of the prison with full respect for the human rights of the prisoners, and this includes not endangering their life or their personal integrity.8 11. In addition, in this particular matter the Court recalls that, in keeping with international standards, the State must ensure that the measures of security adopted in penitentiary centers include adequate training for the prison staff and the effectiveness of these measures to prevent intra-prison violence, including the ability to react when confronted with acts of violence or emergencies within the cell blocks. The State must ensure that inspections are carried out periodically and correctly in order to prevent violence and eliminate risks, based on an adequate and effective control by the prison guards within the cell blocks, and that the results of these inspections are communicated duly and promptly to the competent authorities.9 12. Meanwhile, the State advised the Court that, following the events, approximately 2,003 inmates were transferred to other penitentiary centers (supra considering paragraph 6.j). The information provided by the State also reveals that some injured inmates remain in health centers (supra considering paragraph 6.h). 13. Regarding the beneficiaries of these measures, it is pertinent to clarify that they can be identified and they are those persons who, at January 25, 2013, were deprived of liberty in the Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region. In this regard, the Court notes that some beneficiaries were transferred to other prisons, the population of which is also the object of measures of protection,10 and that most of the beneficiaries have been transferred to prisons that are not the object of provisional measures, or to health centers. Regarding these transfers, the State did not indicate if this was a temporary or definitive measure. On this point, the Court considers that, irrespective of the fact that the place where they are deprived of liberty has changed and of the existence of specific provisional measures, they continue to be in the State’s custody, and the latter has the special obligation to ensure the rights of every person deprived of liberty.11 14. While these provisional measures are in force, according to information provided by the representatives and the State, the persons deprived of liberty and other persons who are in the Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region continue to be subjected to situations that jeopardize their life and personal integrity or that have had a direct effect on the latter. An example of this is the serious acts of violence that took 8 Cf. Matter of the Urso Branco Prison. Provisional measures with regard to Brazil. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 5, 2009, twenty-third considering paragraph. 9 Cf. Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional measures with regard to Argentina. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2010, fifty-second considering paragraph, and Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional measures with regard to Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2011, forty-first considering paragraph. 10 Such as the Matter of the Capital Detention Center El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, and Matter of the Penitentiary Center de Aragua “Tocorón Prison”. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2010. 11 Cf. Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional measures with regard to Argentina. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2007, tenth considering paragraph, and Matter of the Socioeducational Internment Facility. Provisional measures with regard to Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 20, 2012, twenty-first considering paragraph. 7