ordered the provisional measures, and have reacted to the facts that caused the Commission to request the re-opening of the provisional measures. This leads to the reasonable assumption that they will continue exercising due control of respect for the provisions of the Convention,21 and also as regards the measures of protection that may be required in future. Consequently, the Court finds that, at this time, it is not appropriate to order provisional measures of protection. 41. Nevertheless, it is worth underlining what this Court indicated in its last order of November 26, 2010, when requiring the lifting of the measures decided in the matter of the Mendoza Prisons: 52. Notwithstanding the Court’s decision, it must be reiterated that Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligations of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms in all circumstances. In particular, the Court emphasizes the State’s position as guarantor with regard to those deprived of liberty, […] because the prison authorities exercise total control over them, and consequently those general obligations acquire a special nuance that obliges the State to provide the interns with the minimum conditions compatible with their dignity while they remain in a detention center, in order to protect and guarantee their rights to life and personal integrity.[…] Consequently, irrespective of the existence of specific provisional measures,[…] the State is specifically obliged to guarantee the rights of those deprived of liberty.[…] Moreover, in this particular matter, the Court recalls that in conformity with international norms, the State must ensure that the measures of security adopted in the prison centers include the appropriate training of the penitentiary personnel who provide the security in the prison and the effectiveness of the said mechanisms for the prevention of intra-prison violence, such as the possibility of their having to react to acts of violence or emergencies within the pavilions. The State must ensure that searches and carried out periodically and appropriately, in order to prevent violence and eliminate danger, in function of an adequate and effective control within the pavilions by the penitentiary guards, and that the results of these searches are duly and opportunely communicated to the competent authorities. 53. Regarding minimum detention conditions, it is important to recall the principle that the State must provide adequate facilities, separate interns by categories, provide access to satisfactory health, hygiene and education services, and offer activities for recreation and the mental and physical health of persons deprived of liberty.[…] Furthermore, the State must ensure that the personnel responsible for the custody of interns have the necessary capabilities and tools to perform their work respecting the rights of the detainees, especially that they only use planned and limited force exceptionally, in order to avoid violence within the prison. To this end, the measures that the State must adopt should give priority to a system of preventive measures, addressed, inter alia, at avoiding arms smuggling and an increase in violence, rather than a system of repressive measures.[…] 42. In addition, it should be emphasized that, when lifting these provisional measures, the Court merely determines whether the situation of risk that gave rise to the proceeding subsists, in the terms indicated (supra thirtieth considering paragraph), and that the inter-American human rights system will continue to address the situation of the Mendoza Prisons through the actions of one of its organs [the Inter-American Commission], which must determine the next step in the proceedings, either within the framework of the petition pending definition, or by means of other mechanisms, such as 21 Cf. Regarding “control of respect for the provisions of the Convention,” see, inter alia: Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, paras. 124 and 125; Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006, Series C No. 158, para. 128, and Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, paras. 206 to 208. 18