19 16. That the obligation of the State to protect all persons subject to its jurisdiction encompasses the duty to control the actions of third party individuals, an erga omnes obligation.6 17. That the State must adopt forthwith the measures necessary to efficiently and definitively prevent any kind of violence at La Pica Confinement Center, so that no inmate be killed or his/her personal integrity be affected. Inter alia, the State must adopt measures addressed to prevent any future rebellions, riots or other acts that could affect the order within said confinement center. In investigating public disorders, as those occurred in the instant case, the State must do it in full compliance with and applying the domestic laws in furtherance of public order, provided said laws and the actions taken are fully consistent with the human rights protection rules applicable to the particular case.7 In effect, as it has been previously pointed out, this Court recognizes “the existence of the power, an even, of the obligation of the State to ‘guarantee [the] safety and maintain public order.’” However, governmental power in this matter is not unlimited; it is necessary that the State acts “within the limits and pursuant to the procedures that allow to preserve both public security and the fundamental rights of human beings.”8 In this sense, the Court deems that the use of force or of coercive instruments is authorized only in exceptional cases, upon exhausting and after the failure of all other methods of control. 18. That the State must use all possible means to reduce violence to the minimum level within the Confinement Center. In connection with this, the Court considers that the rights to life and to personal integrity “not only imply that the State must respect said rights (negative obligation), but they also require the State to adopt all adequate measures to guarantee such rights (positive obligation,) in furtherance of its general duty set forth in Article 1(1) of the American Convention.”9 19. That the problem of confinement centers requires medium and long term actions in order to adapt its conditions to international standards. However, the States are obliged to implement prompt actions to guarantee the physical, 6 Cf. Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the "Complexo do Tatuapé" of FEBEM. Provisional Measures, supra note 4, Considering clause No. 14; Matter of Eloisa Barrios et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, Considering clause No. 7; and Matter of Luisiana Ríos et al. (Caracas Radio –RCTV- Radio). Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 12, 2005, Considering clause No. 11. 7 Cf. Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the "Complexo do Tatuapé" of FEBEM. Provisional Measures, supra note 4, Considering clause No. 12; Matter of Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 7, 2004, Considering clause No. 12; and Matter of Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 22, 2004, Considering clause No. 10. 8 Cf. Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the "Complexo do Tatuapé" of FEBEM . Provisional Measures, supra note 4, Considering clause No. 12; Matter of Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures, supra note 7, Considering clause No. 12; and Matter of Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures, supra note 7, Considering clause No. 10. Besides, Cf. Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 124. 9 Cf. Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the "Complexo do Tatuapé" of FEBEM . Provisional Measures, supra note 4, Considering clause No. 15; Case of the girls Jean and Bosico. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 173; Case of the "Juvenile Reeducation Institute", supra note 6, para. 168; and Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 129.