-6- protection of a plural number of persons not previously identified, but who can be identified and ascertained, and who are in a situation of grave danger because of their capacity as members of a given group or community,2 such as inmates at a confinement center.3 In this case, the potential beneficiaries can be identified, as they are persons housed at the aforementioned center. 9. That, given the State’s obligation to adopt security measures to protect all persons subject to its jurisdiction, it is the Court’s opinion that such duty becomes even more clear in the case of persons confined at a state facility, at which the State is responsible for guaranteeing the rights of those in its custody.4 10. That given the relationship between the conditions of confinement and the safeguarding of the rights to life and humane treatment, it is possible to give protection to inmates at a confinement center living in the alleged conditions through an order for the adoption of provisional measures issued by the Tribunal. 11. That, based on the information provided by the Commission (supra Having Seen clause No. 2), it is clear that, in spite of certain measures that the State has adopted with a view to improving the inmates’ confinement conditions (supra Having Seen clauses No. 2(i), 2(j) and 2(k)), a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and possibly of irreparable damage to the Yare Prison inmates’ rights to life and humane treatment still exists. Specifically, it should be noted that, from January 2005 to date, several violent incidents have taken place at the Yare Prison, with 59 inmates violently killed by firearm shots, stabbing, hanging and decapitation, as well as at least 67 inmates seriously injured (supra Having Seen clause No. 2(c)). That it is also clearly evident that, among the factors causing the situation of gravity and risk for the Yare Prison inmates, there are the deficient confinement and security conditions in which they are living, and the unavailability of duly qualified and trained staff (supra Having Seen clauses No. 2(g), 3(c), 3(h) and 3(i)). Moreover, the situation is further aggravated by the lack of access controls and the possession Dominican Republic. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 18, 2000. Series E No. 3, Considering clause No. 8. 2 Cf. inter alia, Matter of Pueblo indígena de Sarayaku. Provisional Measures. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2004, Considering clause No. 9; Matter of Pueblo Indígena de Kankuamo. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 5, 2004, Considering clause No. 9; Matter of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 6, 2003, Considering clause No. 9; and Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional Measures. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 18, 2002, Considering clause No. 8. Also, cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 149. 3 Cf. Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”). Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 9, 2006, Considering clause No. 8; Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of FEBEM. Provisional Measures. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 30, 2005, Considering clause No. 6; Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2004, Considering clause No. 5; and Matter of Urso Branco Prison, Provisional Measures. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 18, 2002, Considering clause No. 6. 4 Cf. Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”). Provisional Measures. supra note 3, Considering clause No. 11; Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of FEBEM. Provisional Measures, supra note 3, Considering clause No. 7; and Matter of Urso Branco Prison, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2005, Considering clause No. 6.