appropriate, it can only be examined and resolved during the deliberations on the merits in the adversarial case.8 9. This President observes that from the information provided by the Commission (supra Having Seen 2), it can be deduced that Ms. María Lourdes Afiuni has been under detention since December 10, 2009, and that even though the Commission ordered precautionary measures for her protection on January 11, 2010, the verbal threats against her continue, allegedly from other inmates and public officials. Physical attacks have also been alleged, putting at risk her life and personal integrity. Therefore, the information received would indicate that the precautionary measures have not been sufficient, for which reason it is necessary to step up the security measures taken by the State. In this sense, it is necessary to highlight that Ms. Afiuni has been detained in connection with her actions in the exercise of her position as a criminal judge and that she has been taken to a penitentiary (the INOF) in which it is alleged that other inmates are located who were previously processed by her. 10. To this circumstance is added the alleged deterioration in her health and the alleged lack of adequate medical care, particularly given the discovery of two lumps in her breast, whose diagnosis is still not clear. The Commission also alleges that visitations to Ms. Afiuni are limited and controlled; that the judges have only allowed her to be moved to forensic and military installations to receive care; and that, during the medical visits, penitentiary personnel have remained in the room where Ms. Afiuni was being examined, even though the exams were gynecological in nature. The allegation that at various times Ms. Afiuni was threatened with murder or sexual abuse is particularly worrying. The State has not reported in detail on the specific measures it is presently taking to guarantee adequate conditions of detention and to allow her to receive the medical care of her choice. 11. This Court has found that the State is in a special position to guarantee rights with regard to individuals deprived of liberty due to the fact that penitentiary authorities exercise total control over those individuals. Likewise, the Court has indicated that independent of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is especially obliged to guarantee the rights of individuals deprived of liberty.9More specifically, the Court has established in its settled case law that States have the duty to provide detainees with regular medical checkups and care, as well as adequate treatment when required. 10Likewise, the State must allow and facilitate detainee care by a medical team selected by the detainees themselves or by those exercising their representation or legal custody,11 according to the specific needs of a particular situation. 8 Cf. Case of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of August 29, 1998, Considering six; Matter of the Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó Communities. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of August 30, 2010, Considering 6, and Matter of Gladys Lanza Ochoa. Request for Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Court of September 2, 2010, Considering 7. 9 Cf. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, supra footnote 4, Considering 11; Matter of Natera Balboa. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 1, 2009, Considering 14, and Matter of Guerrero Larez, supra footnote 7, Considering 13. 10 Cf. Case of Cesti Hurtado. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 21, 1998, Considering 6, and Case of Montero Arangueren et al. (Catia Prison) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 102. 11 Cf. Cf. Case of Cesti Hurtado. Provisional Measures regarding Peru, supra footnote 10, Considering 6, Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru, supra footnote 144, para. 227; Case of De la Cruz Flores. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, para. 122, and Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 157, and Case of Montero Arangueren et al. (Catia Prison) v. Venezuela, supra footnote 10, para. 102.