17 41. In this matter, the Tribunal highlights that almost six years have passed since the provisional measures have been adopted. These measures have undoubtedly had a positive effect toward overcoming the grave situation that has principally characterized the Mendoza Provincial Penitentiary since the year 2004, taken into account the grave incidents of violence inside the prisons and the loss of control and security by the authorities in charge of guarding the inmates at certain times or periods. These effects have been recognized by both the Commission and the representatives. The progress on issues of security and detention conditions has already been indicated, as have the improvements in the infrastructure of the complexes and the construction of another maximum-security penitentiary (Almafuerte in Cacheuta) to allow for greater control the overcrowding situation, in addition to other projects that are in progress. Although the violent deaths continued during the years 2008 and 2009 (supra Considering 29), the rate of violent incidents has steadily and significantly decreased, although it has also been confirmed that suicides continue to take place in the penitentiary. Actions have been taken to prevent overcrowding, such as the one tending toward the separation of inmates in the various complexes according to category; the number of penitentiary personnel have been increased; and the inspection system has been implemented for controlling weapons and other objects prohibited within the prison. 42. The Court highlights the different commitments and agreements reached between the State and the representatives of the beneficiaries, such as the document signed on May 11, 2005, in Asuncion,20 (supra Having Seen 3), as well as the recognition by the representatives and the Commission of the actions carried out by the State (supra Considering 18, 24, and 26). 43. It is important to note that the State has complied with its duty to report to the Tribunal periodically on the steps taken to implement these measures. 44. Additionally, it is particularly relevant in this matter to highlight the impact that the measures ordered have had on the actions of domestic legal authorities such as the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation and the Supreme Court of Justice of Mendoza, as well as the attention of international oversight mechanisms like the United Nations Committee against Torture and the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Thus, for example, the Court recalls the adoption of several rulings on the domestic level ordering the correction of the situation in the Mendoza Penitentiaries: a), through writs of habeas corpus, the first one granted on March 23, 200721 and the other granted on June 18, 2008, by the Second Oversight Court of the Judicial Branch of Mendoza, ordering to immediately provide all "corrective measures to safeguard at all times the physical and psychic integrity of the inmates housed in Block 3 of the Provincial Penitentiary of the Province of Mendoza.”22 It also ordered "to attend immediately to the needs of the inmates and resolve the conditions of 20 Matter of the Mendoza Penitentiaries regarding Argentina. Order of the Court of June 18, 2005. Considering 31. 21 Cf. Matter of the Mendoza Penitentiaries. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the Court of August 22, 2007, Considering 14. 22 Cf. Second Oversight Court. Judicial Branch of Mendoza, habeas corpus dated June 18, 2008 (case file of the provisional measures, Volume XIX, pages 6362 to 6372).