of actions pending has no relation to the purpose of the provisional measures procedure, and therefore should not be taken into consideration. e) They requested, among other things, that the State be required to strictly comply with the provisional measures, as well as to guarantee, with urgency, that the actions of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Control Court related to this matter adhere closely to strict compliance with the Court’s jurisdiction and its decisions. 10. The brief of January 10, 2011, whereby the representatives presented information additional to their January 5 brief indicating that Judge Afiuni’s health had worsened since that January 6 and that her “skin was yellow and she has lost the use of her legs. [She also] had a fever during the month of December” and suffered two incidents of tachycardia and low blood pressure. 11. The brief of January 10, 2011, where the Inter-American Commission presented its observations on the State’s reports, and indicated that: a) Although the State indicated that the beneficiary is in a location of “optimal protection”, one can conclude from the documentation attached to its report that Ms. Afiuni is in “the same location she was prior to the issue of the urgent measures,” that is, in the admission area, which “does not mean any guarantee with regard to the other prisoners.” It added that the special security measures adopted by the State, such as locks on the area where she is held and the constant presence of two guards “do not seem to be the most effective for protecting her life and integrity;” b) In its capacity as guarantor of Judge Afiuni’s life and integrity due to her deprivation of liberty, the State is obligated to “protect the beneficiary without this implying improper restrictions with regard to her detention conditions, as this could contribute to increasing the particular vulnerability she faces.” This comment comes following an observation that the security measures put in place “have resulted in her isolation and a series of daily restrictions at the penitentiary center.” It asked the Court to assess the possibility of ordering the State to transfer Ms. Afiuni to a detention center where this risk does not exist and where it is not necessary to impose restrictions on the conditions of her detention; c) Almost all of the information provided by the State regarding the third operative paragraph corresponds to alleged proceedings and transfers prior to the President’s Order, with the only updated information being that which refers to Ms. Afiuni’s transfer to the Padre Machado Cancer Hospital for a medical evaluation. Nevertheless, it stated that it does not have the information that would allow it to verify whether the transfer was conducted and what the results were. Additionally, the State did not explain “how it ensured compliance with the order to ensure that the specialized doctors that attended the beneficiary were those of her choosing;” and d) One can note from the information submitted by the State that Judge Afiuni’s case has been classified as one of “public controversy” in the update report prepared by National Director of Penitentiary Services. This has resulted in the recommendation of “strict measures.” In this regard, the Commission considered it relevant to have 12