12 the applicable penitentiary system.” 36. That the representatives acknowledged that in view of the “Penitentiary Humanization Plan”, […] a field work in all the prisons in Venezuela was started in late 2008 to know the situation of the inmates [and] provide legal assistance to [inmates] by university students.” “Likewise, the Popular Power Ministry of the Interior and Justice set up the Higher Penitentiary Council in October 2008, procuring the joint work of the State powers to promote comprehensive policies for the penitentiary society during the inmates’ imprisonment and in the post-penitentiary stage.” The representatives highlighted these initiatives but they expressed “their concern in view of the situation of inmates in the various Venezuelan prisons.” For the representatives “the figures that […] Venezuela has provided [regarding other matters before this Court] show the conditions of prisons in Venezuela.” 37. That the Commission “acknowledged the State’s will to try and find solutions to prison problems.” However, “it considered that it would be extremely important to have more information, provided by the State, on the construction and effective operation of the new penitentiary units.” Thus, the Commission recalled, “that there are still high violence indexes in Venezuelan penitentiary centers, worsened by overcrowding and inhuman detention conditions, among other factors. The Commission consider[ed] that the measures ordered by the Court in penitentiary matters must continue being supervised until the specific impact of the projects mentioned by the Venezuelan State on the real situation of the Venezuelan penitentiary population can be assessed.” 38. That paragraph 146 of this Court’s Judgment pointed out that this obligation means that the State must guarantee “that the living conditions of the inmates are the result of the respect due to their dignity as human beings, including inter alia: a) bed space that meets minimum standards; b) accommodation which is ventilated and naturally lit; c) regular access to clean toilets and showers securing toilet privacy; d) adequate, timely and sufficient food and health care; and e) access to educational, employment and other opportunities to assist inmates towards a law abiding and self supporting life.” The Court referred specifically to such conditions when declaring previously that the extreme overcrowding conditions and inmates’ overpopulation were the cause of violence and multiple violations of inmates’ rights at Detention Center of Catia.23 39. That during the public hearing held about this case on April 4, 2006, the State referred to the development of “[p]ublic [p]olicies to improve the penitentiary situation, highlighting the Decree on Prison Emergency, the Penitentiary Humanization Plan, and the promotion and dissemination of inmates’ [h]uman [r]ights through workshops.”24 Although the Court acknowledges the progress made by the State after such date, the Court considers that the corresponding measures implemented have not been translated into effective changes to comply with this obligation. 40. That although within the framework of the provisional measures ordered by this Court regarding four Venezuelan penitentiary centers25 the State has provided more 23 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 6, paras. 60.9 and 60.11. 24 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 6, para. 45. 25 The four orders are the American Court of January 13 and and Yare II (Yare Prison): Order Penitenciario de la Región Centro following: a) Internado Judicial de Monagas (“La Pica”): Order of the InterFebruary 9, 2006 and July 3, 2007; b) Centro Penitenciario Región Capital Yare I of the Inter-American of March 30, 2006 and November 30, 2007; c) Centro Occidental (Uribana Prison): Order of the Inter-American Court of February 2,