the Public Defender so it could coordinate matters related to prison visits and the continuation of the judicial proceedings. k) Through a commando operation on June 21, 2011, officials of the National Guard rescued 36 inmates subdued by the so-called “pranes” at the El Rodeo II Penitentiary Center, 11 of them injured. l) Up to that day, a total of 81 inmates “kidnapped” by the so-called “pranes” of El Rodeo II had been rescued. m) On June 22, 2011 military officials had also been able to recover the administrative files of all the inmates of El Rodeo II, since they feard they were going to be destroyed. n) On June 22, 2011 the Vice-Presidency held an encounter with spokespersons for the next of kin of the inmates of different penitentiary centers. ñ) The comprehensive assistance phase was started and in it the Public Defender and the Public Prosecutor’s Office reviewed the judicial cases jointly, being that 459 convicts were choosing alternative forms of compliance with their sentence. o) El Rodeo II would continue to be taken and the so-called “pranes” did not allow the entrance of water and food supplies. p) Constant communication was maintained with the inmates at El Rodeo II “in order to express to them the willingness of the entities involved to guarantee them their constitutional and legal rights, recommending that they avail themselves of the rule of law and the security measures implemented by the competent authorities to solve the situation.” q) Threats were recorded against the commanding officer of the National Bolivarian Guard and his family. 7. This Court finds that the State is in a special position of guarantor regarding detainees since penitentiary authorities exercise complete control over them. In this sense, “[o]ne of the obligations that must necessarily be assumed by the State in its position of guarantor, with the objective of protecting the life and personal integrity of detainees, is that of [securing] them the minimum conditions compatible with their dignity while they remain at the detention centers.”5 8. First of all, the Tribunal points out that El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Capital Judicial Confinement Centers are under the protection of provisional measures ordered by this Court since 2008, being that at the time of the adoption of these measures it had 2,143 inmates, and a capacity of 1,434 (supra Having Seen 1). After four years of being in force, the Tribunal warns that the number of inmates has doubled (supra Considering Clause 6(a)), presenting on June 12, 2011 a situation of overcrowding within this prison of approximately 333%. This evidently has given rise to an atmosphere of instability and conflict within the prison.6 5 Cfr. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 159; Matter of Capital El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II, supra note 3, Considering Clause number eleven, and 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 number eleven. 6 As has been previously stated by this Tribunal, said situation of overcrowding hinders the normal performance of essential functions at the centers, such as health, rest, hygiene, food, safety, visitation regimen, education, work, recreation, and conjugal visit; the result is a generalized deterioration of the physical installations; there are serious coexistence issues, and violence within the prison is favored. All this in detriment of both the inmates and the officials that work at the penitentiary centers, due to the difficult and risky conditions in which they carry out their daily activities. Cfr. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 90; Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010 Series C No. 218, para. 204, and Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Preliminary Objection Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 169, para. 93. 6