State, and specifically regarding the operation, regularity and effectiveness of the Disciplinary Evaluation Commissions. 20. On the other hand, the Court notes that since the Order of September 1, 2011 was issued, there have been persistent reports of acts of violence at UNIS. In particular, there were reports of threats and assaults by officers against inmates, riots and fires, the use of prolonged confinement as a form of punishment and selfmutilation and suicide attempts by inmates locked up for long periods of time. 21. Although the State is currently implementing several measures to overcome the situation of risk to the beneficiaries, recent events at UNIS, allegedly attributed to state agents or to other inmates at the center, as well as serious cases of selfmutilation and suicide attempts, continue to represent a situation of extreme gravity, urgency and imminent risk, which could directly affect the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures. In light of the circumstances of the present matter, which involves children and adolescents deprived of their liberty, the Court believes that the State should eradicate the risks of attempts against the life and personal integrity of the inmates, both in their relations with each other as well as on the part of the state agents,7 and guarantee that the disciplinary regime respects their human rights. 22. In this regard, the Court has indicated that in cases of imprisoned children and adolescents, the State “on the one hand, should assume its special role as guarantor with greater care and responsibility, and should take special measures that focus on the principle of the best interest of children and adolescents. The protection of the lives of children and adolescents requires the State to be particularly concerned with the circumstances of the life they lead while they are detained.” 8 On the other hand, the Court has comprehensively discussed the obligations of States to provide protection against the mistreatment of detained persons.9 Specifically, the Court has referred to the prohibition of using mistreatment as a means to impose discipline on detained minors.10 Nevertheless, the Court notes that although the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child does not reject the positive concept of discipline,11 in exceptional circumstances the use of force for protective purposes should be governed by the principle of the minimum 7 Cf. Matters of certain penitentiary centers in Venezuela. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2011, Considering paragraph 14. 8 Cf. Matter of the Socio-Educational Internment Unit. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 25, 2011, Considering paragraph 15. See also Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child, Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, paras. 50 and 60 9 Cf. Case of Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123. paras. 58 and 70. 10 Cf. Case Institute for the Re-education of Minors v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para.167. See also, Advisory Opinion submitted by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights: Corporal Punishment of Children and Adolescents. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2009, Considering paragraph 14. 11 Cf. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. General Comment No. 8. The Right of the Child to Protection from Corporal Punishment and Other Cruel or Degrading Forms of Punishment. 42nd Period of Sessions (2006). Geneva, May 15 to June 2, 2006. U.N. Doc. CRC/C/GC/8 (2006), para.13. 9