5, 2010, the petitioners had argued before a judge that the Padre Machado Cancer Hospital “does not have the supplies necessary to perform the corresponding necessary treatment”;  “In September of 2010, a member of the World Organisation against Torture (Geneva) tried to visit Ms. Afiuni to assess her detention condition, but was turned away;”  “Ms. Afiuni’s daughter has been subjected to humiliation at the hands of prison employees;”  On November 8, 2010, Judge Afiuni filed a complaint against the INOF director for abuse of detained or convicted persons and for failing to provide help;  After November 14, 2010, when Ms. Afiuni gave statements to the national media, she received new threats against her personal integrity in the prison. In this regard, her attorney stated that some of the inmates said that “they were going to check her all the way to her private parts every half an hour [...] and screamed [...] that they were going to put the entire prison population against her”;  On November 22, 2010, when the Judge was transferred to Padre Machado Hospital, “nationally known for diagnosis and treatment of cancer, [she suffered] violations to the confidential doctor-patient relationship [at the hands of the INOF guards and employees of the National Guard], as they were present during the examinations and hindered their completion”;  The Judge’s attorneys are still waiting for access to the file. t) According to the petitioners, on November 27, 2010, the beneficiary was attacked with edged weapons by two inmates, one of whom was imprisoned “due to Afiuni’s fault.” They told her that “she did not deserve to be imprisoned with them, but to be dead.” According to the information received, there were no guards present, as a result of which on Saturdays, “the prison becomes […] No Man’s Land.” In addition, the petitioners reported that “although the entrance door to the hall where Judge Afiuni’s cell is located is protect[ed] by security locks, on that day, inexplicably but coincidentally, those security locks were open.” 3. The Commission’s arguments to support the request for provisional measures, in which it indicated: a) That although she had been subject to verbal and physical threats against her life and integrity, and even though her defense counsel had requested her transfer on several occasions –and the Commission had ordered it in the precautionary measures- Judge Afiuni continued to be held at the INOF both with inmates who had been convicted by her in her position as judge and with “violent” inmates who considered her a symbol of the institutions that had restricted their liberty. In this regard, “the physical integrity and life of Ms. Afiuni are in a situation” of extreme gravity and urgency and at grave risk of suffering irreparable damage. As reported, on several occasions the other inmates have physically and verbally threatened to kill and rape her; b) Ms. Afiuni was in a “relief” area within the jail, in which there were inmates in different procedural situations and that pose different degrees of danger. Moreover, the situation of insecurity worsened after the statement given during a mandatory 6