9 specific requirements set forth in paragraph 112 of the Judgment.” They focused their concern particularly on provisional arrest centers which “should be controlled as rigorously as those arrest centers managed by the National Penitentiary Institute [Instituto Nacional Penitenciario y Carcelario, INPEC].” They pointed out that the source of most information provided by the State is INPEC, whose competence is limited regarding provisional arrest centers such as police stations and army battalions, among other places “[…] where most alleged incidents of torture or […] cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment are reported to take place[…].” 22. That regarding the foregoing the Commission argued that “control mechanisms must be applied to any center or place where persons deprived of their liberty are held, regardless of whether they are provisional arrest centers, prisons or penitentiaries.” It further stated that no sufficient information h[ad] been submitted which allowed assessing compliance with this reparation measure.” 23. That in paragraph 112 of the Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs of September 12, 2005, the Court ordered that Colombia was to implement control mechanisms in arrest centers. In this regard the Court ordered “[…] that Colombia must adopt the necessary measures to strengthen existing control mechanisms in state arrest centers, for the purpose of guaranteeing adequate arrest conditions and respect for the due process of law. Such control mechanisms must include, inter alia: a) medical examinations of every arrestee or convict, according to standard medical practice. Specifically, examinations shall be conducted under medical control, in private and never in the presence of security staff or other government officials. Such examinations shall be conducted as promptly as possible after the admission of the arrested or imprisoned person to the place of arrest or imprisonment, and thereafter medical care and treatment shall be provided whenever necessary; b) regular psychological assessments of staff in charge of the custody of persons arrested, in order to ensure their appropriate mental health condition; and c) frequent access to such centers for staff of the appropriate human rights surveillance and protection organizations.” 24. That the measures adopted and informed by the State at the private hearing (supra Considering clause 20) are additional to the measures formerly informed to the Court regarding the National Police and the General Prosecutor’s Office provisional arrest centers: “[…] upon admission of an arrestee, various control measures are adopted, among which is a medical check-up to assess the physical and mental health of the arrested person. During detention, the arrested person may make telephone calls and get in contact with his next of kin and legal counsels within the scope established by law. As regards provisional arrest places managed by the Public Force, the Ministry of Defense issued Guideline No. 10 of June 6, 2007 […] [which] sets forth, among oth[e]r things that: the person arrested must be brought before the competent authorities within the term fixed by the law and that an official and public record of the persons arrested must be kept, giving details about the date and time of admission, reason, condition, and authority before which the arrested person has been brough[t].” 25. That the Court highlights and assesses positively the efforts made by the State regarding the foregoing, as they show its partial compliance with this reparation measure regarding permanent arrest centers, which depend on and are managed by the National Penitentiary Institute (INPEC). The Court considers that the advances achieved in connection with the regulations regarding the mechanisms for the control and treatment of persons deprived of their liberty and kept under the