ii) “Another two videos in which prison staff, in an undisciplined and irresponsible manner, annoy each other and end up hitting and kicking each other ‘fraternally’ but visibly arousing their tempers”; iii) Three groups of photographs in which the prison staff can be observed in various obscene situations or justifying violence during the exercise of their functions; iv) Newspaper articles according to which, in November 2009, a candidate for the Mendoza Prison Service reported that one of the instructors submitted his students to physical abuse. The “existence of this complaint was confirmed by the Director of the Prison Service and the instructor has been removed from his post while an investigation is undertaken.” 9. Regarding the foregoing, the State argued that “[t]he specific acts of violence that came to light in February 2011, and regarding which the Commission bases its request to re-open provisional measures, do not constitute a systematic pattern of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of the inmates by prison staff. These are isolated acts of violence, whose common denominator is the identity of the authors who have been deprived of their liberty and charged with the offenses committed.” 10. With regard to the elements provided by the Commission, and in relation to the petitioners’ allegations of a possible systematic practice of torture based on a letter from a deputy reproduced by the Commission, the State acknowledged that the alleged acts took place in different parts of the establishment, but indicated that the same prison staff intervened in each of the alleged acts. Consequently, the fact that the acts occurred in different places within the establishment could not prove that a general pattern exists, but merely that they were acts of “a specific and identified group of prison guards who are being investigated by the provincial system of justice.” It indicated that these individuals are being processed under the most severe administrative charges possible and are no longer able to affect the rights of the inmates. 11. With regard to the declarations of the Prison Attorney, the State indicated that his powers relate to federal rather than provincial inmates; that the last time the Prison Attorney visited the Mendoza prisons was in 2007, and that he had not visited any of the prisons of the province of Mendoza since then. Regarding the complaints mentioned by the President of the Human Rights and Guarantees Commission of the Chamber of Deputies of the province of Mendoza, the State affirmed that it was unaware of these complaints and that, although it had requested them, it had not yet received a response to the said request; hence, the “provincial Executive Branch is unaware of the content of the said complaints received from the [said] Deputy or of how they have been dealt with.” 12. Lastly, in its observations on the State’s brief, the Commission added, with regard to the evidence of a systematic practice that, in the context of the provisional measures, it was “sufficient that there is prima facie evidence of the extreme gravity, urgency and irreparability of the damage.” Furthermore, it mentioned that the State had merely established that “only seven guards were responsible for torturing the inmates, and that they were being prosecuted, without offering any other information 7