the lack of control on the part of the State,” as some inmates were wounded in riots occurring between the months of April and June 2011; d) the inmates are not separated according to their physical build or the seriousness of the crimes committed, “which places the humane treatment of the weakest and most passive inmates at risk”; e) distinct from the State’s report, the inmates reported that during the riot which occurred on June 6, 2011, the penitentiary agents from the Espírito Santo state Department of Justice “[had] entered into the Unit armed and ascertained that [the inmates] had gone to the end of the patio [under threats].” Also, two juveniles were subjected to the “necktie” (hanging) practice on the part of the agents, which caused them to lose consciousness. Furthermore, they indicated that the forensic examination was undertaken 16 days after the alleged beatings, which “prevent[ed] any conclusions on the part of the expert”; f) the inmate J.S., of 13 years of age, alleged to have suffered “very serious abuses [and] tortures” during the period in which he was committed to the UNIS, resulting “in [an] undeniable state of mental illness.” In that regard, J.S. was committed in January 2011 and was transferred to the ward on four occasions owing to the beatings and sexual violence visited upon him by other inmates and guards, including his having been shackled in the “the ‘Jesus Christ’ position when he was in [...] Ward C of the UNIS.” The psychological report issued on April 1, 2011 reported that “the symptoms that J.S. exhibits in this period are indications of the violence endured by this adolescent during his commitment.” Presently, J.S. is committed in the UNIS. An identical situation occurred with another juvenile, J., who was “hanged in his cell almost until the point of losing consciousness”; g) the State has not managed to control the entrance of weapons into the UNIS. Iron bars are regularly found in the juveniles’ possession; h) the State has not been able to bring criminal charges against the officials accused of beating or torturing the inmates. There have been no “convictions of any State agents for poor treatments in the UNIS”; and i) the representatives identified 27 beneficiaries of provisional measures from February 25, 2011 who were transferred to new inpatient facilities and who “suffered abuses in their new places of custody.” In that regard, they affirmed that the transfers represent one of the principal means adopted by the State in response to the Tribunal’s Order. As those young victims of abuse continue in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, they requested that the Court assess the situation of these beneficiaries transferred to other inpatient centers who have suffered threats or acts of violence. 14. Moreover, the representatives declared that the State has not complied with the terms of the Tribunal’s Order of February 25, 2011 and that its actions have not been “sufficient, effective, or adequately implemented to protect the life and humane treatment of the juveniles committed in the UNIS.” They argue that the conditions of extreme gravity, urgency, and the need to avoid irreparable harm persist, and thus requested the continuation of provisional measures. Furthermore, “a 7