c) On April 23, 2011, some juveniles threw stones at some officials, one of whom received a head wound. These officials reacted violently and assaulted the inmates. The agents also threatened to harm their families, and during the forensic examination, the inmates were forced to say that they had fallen from the roof of the Unit or that they had been beaten by other inmates; and d) On April 25, 2011, a riot occurred in the Ressignificar module during which two officials were wounded and two adolescents claimed to have been attacked by officials. 10. In relation to the situation of risk in the Socio-Educational Assistance Unit, the Commission indicated that: a) “the situation of gravity and urgency that gave rise to the adoption of provisional measures in this case has not been overcome. Although it is certain that the existence of provisional measures in this case has shown itself to be an effective mechanism in that the State has put forth certain measures tending to guarantee the security and rights of the juveniles in its custody, [...] the information submitted reveals that acts of violence continue to occur among the inmates, as well as between the inmates and security agents, including complaints of torture, poor treatment, and other deficiencies in juvenile inmates’ conditions of detention”; b) Brazil “has not presented information showing that [the officials’ dismissal] is a constant practice in relation each of the attacks denounced by the juveniles. In particular, the Commission observe[d] with concern that [on one occasion] security agents had forced some juveniles to declare that they were struck by other juveniles, so as to limit the agents’ liability,” and c) Regarding the crimes allegedly committed by inmates, the State “provide[d] no information showing mechanisms or criteria for classification by age or seriousness, among others, in order to control and moderate such situations of violence.” 11. The Commission also affirmed that “[t]aking into account the intense seriousness of the facts and the imminent risk that an irreparable harm to persons materialize, as well as deficiencies in the conditions of detention in the UNIS, the lack of prevention, effective control, and classification of its population, and the lack of judicial control, [...] the Court [should require] that the State immediately implement the measures necessary to comply with the terms [of its Order] and present updated information in that regard.” 12. From the information provided by the parties, the Tribunal notes that ever since the adoption of the Order of February 25, 2011, instances of violence, harassment, and threats against the beneficiaries have been alleged. The State has 6