11 the prison is a “state of war.” The petitioners receive many telephone calls from inmates’ relatives who are concerned for their safety now that they can no longer visit them; b) some 40% of the prison’s installations were destroyed in the most recent riot in April 2004. Conditions at the prison have become even more deplorable, inhuman and foul. The petitioners contend that certain measures must be taken immediately, among them the following: segregation of inmates in preventive detention from those who have already been convicted; an immediate reduction in the number of inmates; and an increase in the number of prison guards to a minimum of 15 per shift. As for the use of discipline and punishment, a number of stories reveal that assaults, torture, electric shock sessions and reprisals continue to follow on the heels of the visits by agencies and organizations and that the “tampão” cell was in use even before the riot; c) they fear that another riot may break out; according to what they have been told informally, a guard, police officer, journalist or one of the petitioners seeking the provisional measures would be taken as a hostage. Even the prison police and guards contact the petitioners to tell them of their fear of being taken hostage; d) the list of inmates submitted by the State does indicate those that have been convicted and those who are in preventive detention; so that the list could be used to separate the inmates, not just on paper but physically as well. The State did not mention whether that segregation is planned and if so, whether it will be effected immediately. The petitioners also requested the creation of a disciplinary committee so that qualified persons might monitor the situation in the prison close-up; e) the State has not fully complied with the measure involving the obligation to investigate the facts so as to identify those responsible and punish them accordingly. Only one person has been convicted for the death of an inmate and only two inquiries or proceedings implicate public officials as either directly or indirectly culpable in the 76 deaths that occurred in the prison between May 2001 and April 2004. Furthermore, although the police investigation phase should last no more than three months, the police inquiry prior to the complaint brought by the Office of the Rondônia State’s Attorney concerning the 27 deaths that occurred in January 2002, lasted 30 months; and f) concerning verification of compliance with the measures, only the Justice and Peace Commission does on-site visits to the prison; it sends the information collected during the visits to the State, even though the latter formed a special commission for that purpose. The petitioners argue that the Inter-American Commission should make a visit in loco; that the Court should convoke another public hearing to examine compliance with the provisional measures and that Brazil must be asked to deploy a task force to check compliance with the measures. The petitioners argue that because the situation at the Urso Branco Prison is so dangerous, it is not enough to simply establish and maintain the Special Commission of the Council for the Defense of Human Rights. The petitioners believe the federal government should