b) Qualif ied personnel: measures for the hiring and training of agents and administrative officials, including actions to offer a better services to detainees; c) Inquiry into the facts and determination of responsibilities: def inition of terms for the conclusion of inquiries and proceedings regarding people investigated in reference to the case of the Urso Branco Prison; implementation of the Support Center for Criminal Executions by the Public Prosecutors’ Office, among other actions; d) Perfecting services, mobilization, and social inclusion: actions regarding the swiftness of the responses to claims filed by the detainee population and their next of kin, as well as an increase in resocialization measures, and e) Measures for fighting a culture of violence: specific actions for the creation and consolidation of mechanisms to fight and prevent violence, mistreat ment, and torture within the penitentiary system. 6. Likew ise, Brazil reported that the Agreement establishes short, medium, and long-term actions to be implemented by federal authorities and state authorities from Rondônia, it identifies the body responsible for implementing each measure, the starting and possible conclusion dates, as well as the specific budgetary entry for each action. Regarding the supervision of the implementation of the Agreement, the parties agreed to: a) maintain in operation the Special Commission of the Defense Council for the Rights of Human Beings; b) send half-yearly reports to the InterAmerican Commission regarding compliance with the Agreement, and c) request an annual work meeting before the Inter-American Commission to evaluate its compliance. Based on the Agreement signed between the parties and the measures to be implemented, the State requested the lifting of the present provisional measures. 7. The representatives of the beneficiaries pointed out the unprecedented nature of the signing of the agreement and expressed their “agreement with the lifting of the [present] provisional measures.” Likew ise, they indicated that even though they don’t think the problems have been solved, they do believe “in the effectiveness of the Agreements and in the commit ments assumed by the […] State.” Finally, they pointed out the request for collaboration addressed jointly to the Inter-American Commission to supervise the implementation of the Agreement . 8. The Inter-American Commission recounted the main facts that had occurred since the adoption of the present measures and indicated that “there has been a qualitative improvement in the situation at the Urso Branco Prison,” and “it value[d] that the parties had reached an Agreement.” Additionally, regarding the request filed by both parties to have the Commission supervise compliance with the Agreement, it stated that said duty is consistent with its conventional and regulatory powers. Finally, it recalled the state’s obligation to protect and guarantee the rights to life and personal integrity of detainees and observed that there would still be situations where follow-up at the Urso Branco Prison was necessary. 9. The Inter-American Court values positively the Agreement presented by Brazil and the representatives of the beneficiaries at the public hearing, as well as the 4