14 investigation commenced in order to identify and punish those detainees that had been involved in the riot of June 16, 2006. 14. That, at the public hearing held before the Court, the State submitted lists stating the new relocation of the detainees that had been referred from the Araraquara Penitentiary, and also information regarding the medical assistance provided to some of them. In that respect, the Commission and the representatives considered that the referral of the inmates made by the State was a positive measure, but they stated that they do not have any details about the current conditions of those persons that had been previously detained in the Araraquara Penitentiary since many detention centers to which they were referred were already overcrowded and did not offer adequate detention conditions. Consequently, the Commission and the representatives pointed out the need that the State inform, with accuracy, the current detention condition of those inmates that had previously been detained in Araraquara Penitentiary. 15. That the Court considers that the detention conditions which inmates had to endure at the Araraquara Penitentiary (supra Considering clause No. 13) are unacceptable. Likewise, the Court notices that as a consequence of its positive obligation to protect the right to life and physical integrity, the State has the duty to prevent that individuals under its custody be subject to conditions such as overcrowding, and to such precarious detention conditions as aforesaid described; furthermore, the State has the duty to divide inmates into different categories. All these circumstances may give rise to violent events such as that occurred in the Araraquara Penitentiary on June 16, 2006 and might cause an immediate loss of lives and generalized attacks affecting the inmates’ personal integrity. 16. That the obligation of the State to protect the lives and the physical integrity of those persons under its custody implies that the State has a duty to protect such persons from any violence as a consequence of the acts of state officers or third parties. The Court notices that the acts of the state security officers, specially those aimed at keeping order, or the possible referrals, must be carried out strictly respecting the human rights of the prisoners and preventing unduly violent acts. The State also has the duty to control the acts of third parties.5 Given the characteristics of the detention centers, the State must protect prisoners from violent acts which, if there is no State control, might take place among the detainees. 17 That the State must comply with its duty to protect and guarantee the human rights of prisoners, taking into consideration, at the same time, its duty to preserve public safety and to protect the rights of all persons under its jurisdiction. 18. That the Court has established that the international responsibility of states, within the scope of the American Convention, arises upon the violation of erga omnes general obligations to respect and secure the protective measures and to secure the enforcement for all persons of the rights embodied in Articles 1(1) and 2 5 Cf. Matter of Yare I y Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, Considering clause No. 14; 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. 16; and Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of FEBEM. Provisional Measures, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 14.