having seen paragraphs 6 to 10), the Court has not received, to date, an updated list of the people currently incarcerated at El Rodeo III, with an indication of those inmates who have been transferred from El Rodeo II Capital Judicial Confinement Center since June 2011, given that the State has not provided this information. 9. Consequently, according to the Order of July 6, 2011, and given the lack of updated and specific information provided by the State, this Court deems that, at least 760 people included in the list previously provided by the State, as well as any other person interned at El Rodeo II Capital Judicial Confinement Center since June 12, 2011, and who was later transferred to El Rodeo III Capital Judicial Confinement Center, remain under the protection of the provisional measures ordered in the matter of El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Capital Judicial Confinement Center in the year 2008 (supra having seen paragraph 1). Namely, the State is obliged to protect the life and personal integrity of detainees, and secure them the minimum conditions compatible with their dignity while they remain under the responsibility of the State. 6 10. Regarding the possible inmates, for which the request for expansion of the measures would correspond, the representatives indicated that approximately 10% of the population would not come from El Rodeo II Capital Judicial Confinement Center. Due to the lack of specific information, the Court is unable to make a precise decision. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Court deems it appropriate to recall that Article 1(1) of the Convention embodies the general duty of States Parties to respect the rights and liberties recognized in said treaty and to ensure to all persons subject to its jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, under any circumstance. Thus, regardless of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is especially obliged to guarantee the rights of the people in circumstances of deprivation of liberty. 7 11. In conclusion, Venezuela is the guarantor of the life and the physical safety of the inmates at El Rodeo I, II and III, as well as of the other prisons in the country. Therefore, it is responsible for adopting all such measures as are necessary to protect them and it must refrain, under any circumstances, from acting in such a way that the life and physical safety of said persons is threatened in an unjustified manner. Given the circumstances of this present case and while the State adapts the detention conditions affecting the inmates, the Court must demand, for the purposes of these provisional measures, that the State effectively eliminates the risk of violent death and threat to physical safety. To that end, the measures to be adopted by the State must include those directly designed to protect the right to life and integrity of the beneficiaries, as much as in the relationship between the inmates, as that with the penitentiary and governmental authorities. It is paramount that the priority measures aforementioned are reflected in the State’s reports describing the means, actions and goals set by the State in agreement with the specific needs of protection of these same beneficiaries. 6 Cf. Case of the "Juvenile Reeducation Institute" v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 159, and Matters of Certain Venezuelan Prisons. Provisional Measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2011, seventh considering paragraph. 7 Cf. Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures with regard to Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 22, 2007, sixteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of the Socio-Educational Internment Facility. Provisional Measures with regard to Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 26, 2012, twenty-second considering paragraph. 5