6 the prison. This service began on February 11, 2004 and was to continue until June 2004. Public defenders were also appointed to track the sentences being served by inmates in the capital city of Porto Velho, so that inmates might be promptly granted the benefits to which they are entitled; a new national database is being developed to establish the profile of the prison population and to modernize the graduated system of serving sentences; d) as for the updated list of inmates, the State provided, as an attachment, a list of the inmates who were at Urso Branco Prison as of April 28, 2004. This list was prepared by the Office of the Superintendent of Prison Affairs of the State of Rondônia. It shows that the prison has a total population of 864 inmates; of these 335 have been convicted and 529 are in preventive detention. However, the State did not report whether the convicted inmates are housed in separate sections, apart from those who have not yet been convicted; and e) the State did not provide any information concerning the investigation of the facts that necessitated adoption of the provisional measures so as to identify those responsible and punish them accordingly, including the investigation into the serious events that occurred subsequent to the Court’s June 18 and August 29, 2002 orders. 18. The briefs of May 17 and 18, 2004, where the Commission presented its comments on the fifth and six reports filed by the State on compliance with the provisional measures (supra ‘Having Seen’ 11 and 17). In those briefs the Commission observed that: a) with regard to the adoption of the measures necessary to effectively protect life and personal safety, the State confined itself to reporting that an agreement had been signed between the Federal Union and the State of Rondônia concerning monitoring of sentences and the easing of prison overpopulation, and that public defenders had been appointed to monitor the sentences served by prisoners in the capital city of Porto Velho. Although the State had reported some advances, the provisional measures ordered by the Court “have not been effectively carried out.” The Commission indicated that protection of life and personal safety requires the adoption of immediate measures enabling the State to regain control of the prison and effectively guarantee such fundamental rights. Furthermore, the State is charged with protecting those rights, so that no inmate need feel obliged to look out for his own personal safety or feel that his fate is “at the mercy of rivalries between inmates at that prison”; b) concerning the State’s adjustment of conditions at Urso Branco Prison to bring them in line with the applicable international standards for the protection of human rights, the State needs to present a plan with immediate, short-, medium-, and long-term goals to raise the material conditions of incarceration at the prison up to the existing standards on the subject, among them those contained in such instruments as the American Convention and the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners; c) as for the requirement associated with the updated list of all the inmates, the State did not answer the Court’s question as to whether the