reasonable period of time has not passed without threats to the beneficiaries’ lives or humane treatment that would justify the rescission of provisional measures.” 15. The Commission stressed the seriousness of the representatives’ complaints regarding violence against inmates, which “include the practice of torture.” It also declared that riots are ongoing despite a reduction in the population. The State “has not proven that [...] it has control over the Unit” and “its own Public Ombudsman has documented acts of torture and cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment [on] at least two occasions in March and July [2011].” The Commission considered it “particularly serious that there is no separation of the juveniles by [physical] build, [nor by the] gravity of the crimes they’ve committed.” It expressed its concern regarding the “men in black” within the Unit. In relation to the movement of the inmates to other units, the Commission stated it “did not [have] adequate information to [...] take a position [on] whether provisional measures follow the beneficiaries [in this case].” Nonetheless, in the event the beneficiaries’ information is confirmed, it would be particularly serious given that these are alleged acts of torture and threats thereof on the part of State agents, against whom the juveniles would not be protected outside the UNIS. The Commission moreover remarked that the burden of proof regarding the movement of inmates falls to the State, and that the State must present accurate information as to which inmates were moved, to which Unit, and their current situation. The Commission also expressed its concern regarding the State’s alleged position that “once a juvenile steps out of the UNIS, upon his being moved, [then] the State has no duty to inform [the Tribunal].” 16. Finally, the Commission noted the difference between the State’s and the representatives’ versions of the inmates’ situation. It then requested that provisional measures be kept in place by virtue of the conflicting information submitted by the parties. It also found that there is sufficient information regarding “alleged torture [and] very serious acts against the juveniles’ right to humane treatment.” 17. The Court notes that the State adopted measures aimed at improving security and diminishing violence within the UNIS, among which it noted the installation of security equipment in the facility’s common areas, training restraint agents, and the regular presence within the UNIS of representatives from the Attorney General’s Office and the Office of the Public Ombudsman to verify the status of the inmates’ human rights and, where appropriate, conduct the necessary investigations. 18. The Tribunal furthermore notes that since the issuance of this Court’s Order of February 25, 2011, complaints of violent acts inside the UNIS have continued; in particular, an attempted riot, threats, and cruel treatments were reported in the months of April, May, June, July, and August 2011, all of which serve to undermine the right to humane treatment inhering in the beneficiaries of provisional measures. In that regard, the Court notes that the State’s institutions, such as the Public Ombudsman and the Attorney General, have submitted detailed information about acts of violence committed both by State agents as well as inmates. This Court also notes that during the public hearing the State presented information on a monthly survey conducted by the Attorney General which showed that 43% of the inmates believed a “war” existed among groups within the UNIS, and that 39% of inmates confirmed that they had been victims of “violations of their rights, torture, or cruel treatments on the part of the officials.” 27% of them admitted they had suffered “violence on the part of other inmates.” 8