4 i) to evaluate the confinement centers and supporting services as regards their infrastructure, personnel and services supplied to inmates; ii) propose and recommend the guidelines, plans and strategies driven to give a solution to the various problems arisen in the confinement centers and of the human factor involved; iii) to recommend the Judicial Power the actions that would assure compliance with the right to a speedy trial and the right of convicted persons to have access to alternative means for penalty enforcement; and iv) to propose and recommend measures addressed to assuring the enjoyment and exercise of human rights of inmates during their stay at the confinement centers. q) before the creation of the Presidential Committee, the National Assembly had requested the Executive Power to declare the jail emergency; and r) The Presidential Committee advanced the date of a census in order to know the legal status of inmates and urge the reduction of jail overcrowding and the delay in proceedings. 4. The statements made by the Commission in its request for provisional measures, citing the 2004-2005 Annual Report of the non-governmental organization named Programa Venezolano de Educación-Acción en Derechos Humanos (Venezuelan Program of Education-Action on Human Rights)(PROVEA), pursuant to which “it is premature to assess the impact of the process started by the Jail Emergency Executive Order, and to determine the degree of achievement in attaining the goals established by the Comisión Presidencial para Atender la Emergencia Carcelaria (Presidential Committee for Jail Emergency),” and “the value of the declaration of the emergency and of the creation of a top level commission consisting of different institutional players and presided over by the Home and Justice Minister. This is a clear evidence of the concern of the government for the condition of the penitentiary system, and an attempt to find solutions agreed upon by the several parties involved.” Moreover, “the methodology adopted, pursuant to which the different sectors involved were called to participate in order to conduct a series of surveys with the purpose of obtaining a thorough and broad diagnosis of the existing conditions, which would then allow to define the measures and policies to be implemented, permit us to recognize the apparent seriousness and strictness of the actions taken. On the other hand, the preliminary results that [PROVEA has] learnt of, regarding both the assessment and the [proposed] aspects, are consistent with those established by the international rules and recommendations.” However, “the position of non[-]governmental organizations […] that participate in the penitentiary system, as well as that of different technicians and professionals […], make us think that the discussion and consultative process was not as broad as it would have been desirable, and as the executive order itself established.” 5. The legal arguments of the Commission to ground its request for provisional measures, where it stated that: a) the facts described are serious enough for the Court to urgently intervene in order to safeguard the life and personal integrity of the persons subject matter of this request;