6 * * * 17. That in its last Orders the Court ordered the State to adopt the following measures in addition to protecting the prisoners’ lives and physical safety: (a) adjust the conditions at the prison to the applicable international human rights protection standards; and (b) investigate the events which led to the adoption of provisional measures in order to identify those responsible and, if appropriate, impose the applicable sanctions (supra Having Seen clause N. 1). 18. That, with regard to the detention conditions prevailing at the Urso Branco Prison, the State has informed the Court on the separation between convicted and untried prisoners; the transfer of detainees to other detention centers and the reduction in overcrowding allegedly caused by the transfers, cutting the number of inmates down to 900; the improvement in such aspects as the supervision of the catering supplier, regular medical assistance, hygiene products received by the prisoners, the regularity of visits from relatives, the acquisition of better security equipment and fans, and free legal assistance. The representatives have pointed out that detention conditions continue to be inhumane; that prisoners sleep together on the cell floors and that the cells have no ventilation, which is particularly serious considering that the prison is located in an extremely warm and humid area; that the prison houses more than twice as many inmates as it was built to accommodate; that prisoners have no activities and are completely idle, and they are only allowed to go out in the sun once a week; that water supply is poor, so many suffer from dehydration, and it is of extremely bad quality, just as the food; that there is no permanent medical service, and that the overcrowding and the poor hygiene conditions favor the spread of infectious diseases. Finally, the Commission stated that the inmates continue to be subjected to inhumane and degrading detention conditions. 19. That the State has, with regard to all persons under its jurisdiction, the general duties to respect and guarantee the full enjoyment and exercise of rights, not only in connection with the power of the State but also in relation to acts of individual third parties. Special duties derive from these general obligations which are ascertainable on the basis of the particular protection needs of the subject of rights, whether on account of his personal situation or the specific circumstances pertinent to him,4 such as detention. The Court has pointed out that the State has a special position as guarantor of the persons kept under custody, on account of the particular control relationship between an inmate and the State. Under such circumstances, the State’s general duty to respect and safeguard rights becomes particularly important as it binds the State, 4 Cf. I/A Court H.R. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C N. 140, para. 111; I/A Court H.R. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C N. 163, para. 67; and I/A Court H.R. Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C N. 171, para. 120.