15 dispute between the petitioners and the State.1 That in adopting provisional measures, the Court is only fulfilling its mandate in conformity with the terms of the Convention, in cases of extreme gravity and urgency calling for protective measures in order to avoid irreparable damage to persons. 6. That Article 1(1) of the Convention provides for the State Parties’ general obligation to respect the rights and freedoms contained therein, and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. In furtherance of this obligation, any State Party has the erga omnes obligation of protecting all the persons subject to their jurisdiction. This Court has held that said general obligation is imposed in connection not only with the power of the State, but also with the acts and conduct of private third parties.2 7. That this Court has held that every State has a special role as guarantor in respect of the persons held in custody in penitentiary institutions or detention units, as penitentiary authorities exert control over these persons.3 Furthermore, “[o]ne of the obligations that a State must unavoidably assume in its role as guarantor —in order to protect and guarantee the right to life and personal integrity of the inmates— is to [provide] them with minimum conditions compatible with their dignity while they remain in said detention units.”4 8. That, during the effective term of these provisional measures —according to the information submitted by the Commission, the representatives and the State— the inmates of the Mendoza Provincial Prison and those in custody in the André 1 Cfr. Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”). Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 9, 2006, Considering Clause No. 7; Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 18, 2005, Considering Clause No. 5; and Matter of Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 15, 2005, Considering Clause No.5. 2 Cfr., by virtue of its contentious function, Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C. No. 140, paras. 113 and 114; Case of the Mapiripán Massacre. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C. No. 134, paras. 111 and 112; Case of the Moiwana Community. Judgment of June 15, 2005, Series C. No. 124, para. 211; Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C. No. 114, para. 108; Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C. No. 110, para. 91; Case of 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 183; Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 71; Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 111; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 81. See also, by virtue of its advisory powers, cfr. Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, para. 140. Furthermore, upon ordering provisional measures, cfr. Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”), supra note 1, Considering Clause No. 16; Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the "Complexo do Tatuapé" of FEBEM. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 30, 2005, Considering Clause No. 14; Matter of Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures. Order of June 18, 2005; Matter of Pueblo Indígena de Sarayaku. Provisional Measures. Order of July 6, 2004; Case of the Pueblo Indígena de Kankuamo. Provisional Measures. Order of July 5, 2005; Matter of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó. Provisional Measures. Order of March 6, 2003, page 169; Matter of Peace Community of San José de Apartadó . Provisional Measures. Order of June 18, 2002, page 141, and Matter of Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures. Order of June 18, 2002, page 53. 3 Cfr. Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”), supra note 1, Considering Clause No. 11; Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the "Complexo do Tatuapé" of FEBEM, supra note 2, Considering Clause No. 17; and Matter of Mendoza Prison. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 18, 2005, considering No. 11. 4 Cfr. Matter of Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 18, 2005, Considering Clause No. 7, and Case of the "Juvenile Reeducation Institute". Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 159.