-7- of weapons inside the confinement facility (supra Having Seen clauses No. 2(c), 2(e) and 3(h)). 12. That, based on the information supplied by the Commission, several measures have been or are about to be adopted for the purpose of protecting the life and physical integrity of the correctional community in Venezuela, as well as to improve the confinement conditions of the inmates (supra Having Seen clauses No. 2(i), 2(j) and 2(k)). Such measures include, most importantly, the creation of the Presidential Commission on the Correctional Emergency, the inspections carried out in search of weapons inside the prison, and the review and revocation of certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, among others. 13. That, under the circumstances of the case at hand, the Commission claims that several inmates have been killed and injured as a result of fights among the prisoners. 14. That the State’s obligation to protect all persons subject to its jurisdiction includes the duty to control the action of private third parties, an obligation 5 enforceable as against all. 15. That the State is required to immediately adopt such measures as may be necessary to efficiently and conclusively prevent all violence at the Yare Prison, in a manner such that no inmate is killed or their physical integrity impaired. Such measures include measures intended to prevent future uprisings or other situations that may disturb the peace at said center. In quashing disturbances such as the ones that took place in the instant case, the State is to act in line and in accordance with its municipal laws and regulations, seeking to maintain public order, provided, however, that such laws and regulations and the action taken pursuant thereto are, in turn, in line with the applicable human rights protection rules.6 As a matter of fact, as noted on previous occasions, the Court recognizes the existence of the State’s power, and even its obligation, to guarantee security and maintain public order. However, the State’s power in this regard is not unbounded; the State must act within boundaries and pursuant to the procedures that allow the preservation of public security and the fundamental rights of human beings.7 In this regard, the Tribunal believes that force or coercive instruments may only be used in exceptional cases, if all other means of control have been unsuccessfully tried first. 5 Cf. Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”). Provisional Measures. supra note 3, Considering clause No. 16; Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of FEBEM. Provisional Measures, supra note 3, Considering clause No. 14; and Matter of Eloisa Barrios et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, Considering clause No. 7. 6 Cf. Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”). Provisional Measures; supra note 3, Considering clause No. 17; Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of FEBEM. Provisional Measures, supra note 3, Considering clause No. 12; and Matter of Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 7, 2004, Considering clause No. 12. 7 Cf. Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”). Provisional Measures, supra note 3, Considering clause No. 17; Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of FEBEM. Provisional Measures, supra note 3, Considering clause No. 12; and Matter of Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures, supra note 6, Considering clause No. 12.