7 since their members have not received appropriate training. The effectiveness of these searches is questionable, since, during the uprisings of June 17, July 13 and August 20, 2006, it was again verified that the inmates have access to weapons iii. (Separation of the inmates): the criteria for the separation of the young people by age or nature of offense committed are not respected; and iv. (Medical care): the youths do not receive the appropriate medical, dental and psychological care. Given the ailments from which several inmates reportedly suffer, which can be attributed to a lack of hygiene and of satisfactory detention conditions, the State has not guaranteed an adequate level of health in the Complex; (d) Regarding the participation of the representatives in the process of planning and implementing the measures: the information received from representatives and the State suggests the inexistence of participation as decided by the InterAmerican Court; (e) Regarding facilitating the access of the representatives to the units of the Complex: the information provided by the State suggests that the representatives have sporadic access to the CASA Foundation. There is no information on the measures adopted by the State to make these visits viable; (f) Regarding the forwarding of an updated list of the inmates: the State has complied with the Court’s requirement, and (g) Regarding the investigation into the facts: it expressed its concern about the absence of information on the actual status of the criminal investigations into the violent incidents that motivated the adoption of provisional measures. Regarding the administrative investigations referred to by the State: most of them do not correspond to the incidents that took place in the Complex. In addition, the administrative investigations initiated to inquire into the mistreatment of the inmates, including the deaths of Jonathan Vieira, Ronnie Mustafá and Cristiano da Silva, were closed owing to insufficient evidence or, despite the time that has elapsed, in some cases they have still not gone beyond the preliminary investigation stage. CONSIDERING: 1. That Brazil has been a State Party to the American Convention since September 25, 1992, and, pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on December 10, 1998. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes: “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With regard to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 3. That, in the terms of Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court: […]