7 “in order to protect and ensure the right to life and the right to humane treatment [of persons deprived of their liberty], to provide those persons with the minimum conditions befitting their dignity as human beings, for as long as they are interned in a detention facility".5 20. That this Court observes that improving and correcting the situation of the Urso Branco Prison is a process which will require the State to adopt short, mid- and longterm measures to address the structural deficiencies affecting the persons kept under custody. The duty to adopt such measures derives from the general obligations to respect and guarantee rights, acquired by the State when it ratified the American Convention on Human Rights. The compatibility of the measures adopted with the protection standards fixed by the Inter-American system must be assessed at the proper time, that is, the merits stage. As long as the State adjusts the detention conditions affecting the inmates, the Court must demand, for the purposes of these provisional measures, that the State effectively suppress the risk of violent death and threat to physical safety (supra Considering clause N. 15). 21. That the Court considers that the detailed analysis of the compliance of the imprisonment conditions with the American Convention must be carried out together with that of the merits of the case. In this connection, the Court observes that case N. 12,568 has been heard by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights since June 5, 2002, when the Commission received a complaint on the situation of persons deprived of liberty at the Urso Branco Prison. As reported to the Court on August 28, 2007 by the Commission, “case N. 12,568, Persons Deprived of Liberty at the Urso Branco Prison, Rondônia, is pending on the merits stage.” The Inter-American Court would consider the compliance of detention conditions at Urso Branco with the American Convention and the applicable international standards at the proper stage in the proceedings, should the case be brought before the Court. 22. That for as long as this case is pending before the Commission, it is within the Commission’s province to consider the alleged inhumane conditions and take such measures as it deems appropriate, pursuant to its powers. * * * 23. That with regard to the investigation of the events that led to the adoption of the measures, the State has reported joint efforts of competent authorities to speed up Cf. I/A Court H.R. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C N. 112, para. 159; Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of FEBEM. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 30, 2005, Considering clause N. 7; and Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 9, 2008, supra note 1, Considering clause N. 11. 5