h) On June 11, 2010, the Commission asked the State to adopt urgent measures to the benefit of María Lourdes Afiuni, requiring the State to:  Take those measures necessary to guarantee her life and physical integrity.  Take those measures necessary for her to be transferred to a safe place.  Report on the actions taken toward judicially clearing up the facts justifying the adoption of precautionary measures: i) On January 15, 2010, the State indicated that on December 21, 2009, the public prosecutor from the Office of the Attorney General verified that María Lourdes Afiuni was located in the security area know as the "Admission Area," which is used in "special cases," and that she was completely separated from the other holding areas "such that there is no risk of her being attacked by the other inmates." Likewise, it stated that the Directorate of Fundamental Rights of the Office of the Attorney General and the Senior Public Prosecutor of Miranda State had visited the INOF to verify the conditions under which Ms. Afiuni was being held, highlighting that she had stated “her decision to remain in the INOF and not be transferred to another location, expressing her appreciation to the guard staff for her permanent protection." According to information provided by the State, Judge Afiuni had been transferred to the INOF on December 19, 2009; j) On January 26, 2010, the petitioners reported to the Commission that Judge Afiuni had been transferred to a maximum security cell; they highlighted that the location did not meet minimum sanitary conditions and that the judge’s alleged statements were the result of a manipulation of her comments, as she had requested to be "transferred to her previous cell," given the conditions in her new place of detention. They highlighted that security conditions for the beneficiary were not adequate anywhere in the INOF, indicating that the authorities in that penitentiary have done "the little that was in their power." That communication was forwarded to the State on February 1, 2010, in order to receive comments, but the Venezuela did not respond; k) On June 30, 2010, the petitioners pointed to a series of shortcomings in the conditions of detention, a lack of medical care,2 and restrictions to visitations,3 among other allegations. They stated that the facility does not respect standards for classifying inmates according to how dangerous they are, nor are those on trial separated from those who have been sentenced. They added that "the hall where the judge is located is a kind of ‘overflow’ area of the prison, and that generally violent inmates [...] are sent to this area to alleviate tension in other parts of the prison.” Additionally, they reported that toward the end of January 2010, there was an arson attempt after which the inmates were transferred to another area of the prison. However, the beneficiary and the inmates located in that hall had not been evacuated due to a "supposed oversight;" 2 The petitioners indicated that after a series of medical examinations, Ms. Afiuni was prescribed a medicine containing penicillin, causing an allergic reaction. They also indicated that paramedics had recommended she be transferred to a medical facility. This transfer was denied by the facility's authorities. They highlighted a psychological report on Ms. Afiuni that had indicated that "she was suffering from the deterioration of her physical and mental health." However, no psychological treatment was provided. 3 The petitioners stated that on several occasions, the representatives had been prevented from seeing Ms. Afiuni on "general visitation or attorney visitation days.” They added that in mid-May, Ms. Afiuni had been notified that her attorneys can only visit her for a maximum of 30 minutes.