Similarly, the Commission recalls that, by its own mandate, it is not called upon to determine any individual liabilities for the facts alleged. Moreover, in this proceeding, it is not appropriate to rule on violations of rights enshrined in the American Convention or other applicable instruments.36 This is better suited to be addressed by the Petition and Case system. The following analysis relates exclusively to the requirements set forth in Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure, which can be resolved without making any determinations on the merits.37 30. As a preliminary aspect, the Commission considers it important to recall that in the Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua38, the Court ordered, by judgment of June 23, 2005, a series of measures and reparations to the State of Nicaragua. Among them, legislative reforms in electoral matters were ordered to guarantee the participation of members of indigenous and ethnic communities in electoral processes in an effective manner and taking into account their traditions, uses, and customs. It is worth mentioning the participation of Mr. Brooklyn Rivera Bryan as a witness, as a member and leader of YATAMA, during the development of the Matter of YATAMA Vs Nicaragua before the Inter-American Court. The Commission highlights that, in its last judgment to monitor compliance with resolution of November 20, 2015, the Court concluded that, for more than five years, the State has failed to comply with its duty to report on the measures adopted from the Judgment issued on June 23, 2005.39 Therefore, the Commission observes that the orders of the Inter-American Court are still pending. In this context, the YATAMA organization, through its regional deputies in the National Assembly, has been seeking effective compliance by presenting various actions, such as legislative reforms in electoral matters. 31. Given the proposed beneficiary's situation, the Commission recalls that, in relation to persons deprived of liberty in general, the State is in a special position of guarantor that implies the duty to respect their life, integrity, health, and other human rights, inasmuch as prison authorities exercise a strong control or command over the persons in their custody 40 . This is due to the unique relationship and interaction of subordination between the person deprived of liberty and the State, characterized by the particular intensity with which the State can regulate their rights and obligations, and by the very circumstances of imprisonment, where prisoners are prevented from satisfying on their own a series of basic needs that are essential for the development of a dignified life.41 32. In the matter at hand, the Commission observes that the alleged situation of risk that the proposed beneficiary faces takes place within the current context that Nicaragua is experiencing (referred to above), which is particularly hostile towards persons considered, perceived, or identified as opponents of the IACHR. Resolution 2/2015. Precautionary Measure No. 455-13. Matter of Nestora Salgado regarding Mexico. January 28, 2015, para. 14; IACHR. Resolution 37/2021. Precautionary Measure No. 96-21. Gustavo Adolfo Mendoza Beteta and family regarding Nicaragua. April 30, 2021, para. 33. 37In this regard, the Court has indicated that “[it] cannot, in a provisional measure, consider the merits of any arguments pertaining to issues other than those which relate strictly to the extreme gravity and urgency and the necessity to avoid irreparable damage to persons.” See in this regard: I/A Court H.R. Matter of James et at. regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, considerandum 6; I/A Court H.R. Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 22, 2021, considerandum 2 [only in Spanish]. 38I/A Court H.R., Matter of Yatama v. Nicaragua, Judgment of Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs, June 23, 2005, Series C. No.127. 39I/A Court H.R., Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua, Resolution of Supervision of compliance with the Judgment of November 20, 2015, resolutive 1 and 2. 40See in this regard: I/A Court H.R. Matter of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260. Para. 188; IACHR. Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas. OAS/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 64. December 31, 2011. Para. 49. 41IACHR. Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas. OAS/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 64. December 31, 2011. Paras. 49-50. 36 8