6 warrant keeping them in force. All other issues may be brought to the Court’s attention solely through the procedure for contentious cases.5 6. That according to the International Human Rights Law, the provisional measures are not only precautionary in the sense that they preserve a legal situation, but they are also mainly protective since they protect human rights, insofar as they avoid irreparable damage to people. In this sense, provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.6. 7. That the State has the obligation to adopt protective measures to safeguard the persons under its jurisdiction, and such obligation is even more evident regarding persons lodged in a government confinement center, in which case the State is the guarantor of the rights of the persons under its custody.7 8. That, in accordance with the Orders of the Court issued between 2006 and 2008 (supra Having Seen clauses 1 to 4), in the matters of "La Pica", Yare, Uribana and El Rodeo (hereinafter, the "four penitentiary centers" or the "four matters"), the State had and still has the obligation, inter alia, to adopt the provisional measures that may be necessary to protect the life and personal integrity of all the persons confined in the penitentiary centers referred to above, especially to avoid injuries and violent deaths. 9. That the Court values the effectiveness of the hearing held in order to learn about the current status of the provisional measures ordered in the four matters of reference. * * * 10. That even though the Tribunal received and has separately processed each one of the four matters (supra having seen clauses 1 to 4), it considers it is convenient to analyze the information presented by the parties in that regard, as a whole, as analyzed at the public hearing (supra Having Seen clause 11) due to reasons of procedural economy (infra Considering clauses 43 and 44). A) On the maintenance of the provisional measures 11. That the State has provided, inter alia, the following information regarding the implementation of the provisional measures ordered by the Court: a) the “violence rate” in prisons has fallen as a result of the different types of measures adopted by the State. According to the State, this is shown in the following figures: in the year 2008, 151 people were injured and 85 people died in the four 5 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 20, 1998, considering clause six; Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 22, 2009; considering clause four; and Matter of the persons imprisoned in the "Dr. Sebastião Martins Silveira" Penitentiary in Araraquara, São Paulo. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2008, Considering Clause fifteen. 6 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001; considering clause four and Case A.J. et al, supra note 2, considering clause five and Matter of Fernández Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 30, 2009, Considering Clause five. 7 Cf. Matter of the Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison) Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2007; considering clause seven; Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”). Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 3, 2007, Considering Clause ten.