constructive attitudes of both parties, w hich is ref lected in the adoption of the same. The Tribunal takes note that both the State and the representatives agreed on the lifting of the provisional measures and that the Commission indicated that there has been a qualitative improvement at the Urso Branco Prison. 10. On the other hand, the Court observes that since December 2007 no violent deaths or riots have been recorded at the Urso Branco Prison. Likewise , the prison population decreased to approximately 700 inmates in 2009, and since then the number of inmates has remained practically the same without greater variations. Additionally, the State is investigating the claims of violence or mistreat ments presented by the representatives, in fact some criminal proceedings have been resolved in lower courts, such as those regarding the facts that occurred in January 2002, which resulted in the present provisional measures. 11. Therefore, taking into considerat ion the aforementioned Agreement and the request for the lifting of provisional measures filed by the State along w ith the consent of the representatives and the information presented by the parties, the Inter-American Court considers that the requirements of extreme gravity, urgency, and need to prevent irreparable damage to the beneficiaries are no longer present, for which it hereby proceeds to lift the present provisional measures . 12. Without prejudice for the foregoing, it is appropriate to recall t hat Article 1(1) of the Convention states the general obligations the States Parties have to respect the rights and freedoms enshrined in it and to guarantee their free and full exercise to all persons subject to its jurisdiction. Specifically, the Court points out the position of guarantor the State has regarding detainees, 6 since the penitentiary authorities exercise complete control over them, in w hich case those general obligations acquire a specific tone that compels the State to provide for the inmate s, with the objective of protecting and guaranteeing their rights to life and personal integrity, with the minimum conditions compatible w ith their dignity while they remain at the detention centers.7 Therefore, regardless of the existence of specific prov isional measures, the State is especially compelled to guarantee the rights of the persons who have been imprisoned. 8 THEREFORE : 6 Cf. Matter of the Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of May 2, 2008, nineteenth considering paragraph; Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the Inter -American Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2010, fifty-second considering paragraph, and Matter of the Socio-Educational Internment Unit. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 25, 2011, fourteenth considering paragraph. 7 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 159; Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2004, tenth considering paragraph; Matter of the Urso Branco Prison, supra note 6, nineteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of the Mendoza Prisons, supra note 6, fifty-second considering paragraph. 8 Cf. Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 22, 2007, sixteenth considering paragraph; Matter of the Mendoza Prisons, supra note 6, fifty-second considering paragraph, and Matter of the Socio-Educational Internment Unit, supra note 6, fourteenth considering paragraph. 5