7 requested that the provisional measures be maintained as regards those beneficiaries who are housed at overcrowded units. 14. That the Commission stated that it is not unaware of the context in which the events that led to the adoption of these measures took place, but it does not consider that the State acted appropriately in promoting the confinement of inmates in a reduced section of the Penitentiary where they were held in complete isolation. It also argued that “there is no question that the [Araraquara Penitentiary] has become a very modern penitentiary, [and] that inmates currently housed in said institution live in much better conditions” than those endured by the beneficiaries at the time the measures were ordered. However, the Commission expressed its concern over the unavailability of accurate data sufficient for an analysis of the actions taken to protect the life and integrity of the beneficiaries at the centers to which they were transferred, and to avoid the undue use of force on the part of security officers. In this regard, even though Brazil identified the facilities to which the beneficiaries were transferred, no specific information has been made available regarding the conditions of detention at said prisons. In the Commission’s opinion, it is necessary to carefully examine the situation of those inmates who are still subject to the measures of protection in order to determine whether the order of the Court has been effectively complied with; accordingly, accurate information regarding the current situation of the beneficiaries is necessary in order to analyze the State’s request to lift the measures. Lastly, the Commission argued that no information has been provided on the progress made in the investigations of the facts that led to the adoption of these measures. * * * 15. That, towards all persons subject to its jurisdiction, the State has the general obligation to respect and guarantee the full enjoyment and exercise of their rights; such obligations apply not only in connection with the State’s authority but also relative to the actions of private third-parties. Special duties derive from these general obligations which are ascertainable on the basis of the protection needed by the individual who is the subject of the right, either on account of his personal situation or of the specific circumstances pertinent thereto,8 as is the case with detention. The Court has emphasized the special role of the State as a guarantor of the rights of detained persons, considering the special relationship of subjection between inmate and State. In said situation, the general state duty to respect and guarantee human rights takes on a special connotation that requires that the State provide inmates, “in order to protect and ensure [their] right to life and […] to humane treatment, [...], with the minimum conditions befitting their dignity as human beings, for as long as they are interned in a detention facility.”9 8 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 31, 2006, Series C No. 140, para. 111; Matter of the Urso Branco Prison, supra note 2, nineteenth considering clause; and Case of Albán-Conejo et al. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2007, Series C No. 171, para. 120. 9 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 2, 2004,