14 4. Under the International Law of Human Rights, urgent and provisional measures serve a further purpose, which is to protect fundamental human rights, thereby avoiding irreparable harm to persons. When the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and avoidance of irreparable harm to persons are met, provisional measures become a genuine jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.6 5. Article 1(1) of the Convention sets forth the general obligation of the States Party to respect the rights and freedoms embodied in that Convention and to ensure the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms to all persons subject to their jurisdiction, which carries with it the duty to adopt security measures necessary for their protection. These obligations become even more self-evident in connection with those who are involved in proceedings before the oversight bodies of the American Convention.7 6. In light of the responsibility of the State to adopt security measures to protect persons who are under its jurisdiction, the Court deems that this duty is all the more compelling with respect to persons incarcerated in a State detention center, in which case the State’s responsibility for what happens to those who are in its custody must be presumed.8 7. Under the terms of the Court’s Orders (supra ‘Having Seen 1, 2 and 16), the State must adopt measures to protect the lives and personal safety of all inmates at the Urso Branco Prison, and of all persons who enter there, which includes visitors. One such measure is confiscation of the weapons that the inmates have in their possession. It must also investigate the facts that necessitated the adoption of provisional measures so as to identify the responsible parties and punish them accordingly. 8. The Court has noted with concern that while these provisional measures were in effect, more people have died at the Urso Branco Prison, even though the fundamental purpose to be served with adoption of these measures is to effectively protect the lives and personal safety of all persons incarcerated in the prison and those who enter it. 6 Cf. Matters of: Liliana Ortega et al., Luisiana Ríos et al., Luis Uzcátegui, Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 4, 2004, ‘Considering’ five; Matter of the Urso Branco Prison, Provisional Measures. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of April 22, 2004, ‘Considering’ four; and Matter of Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Human Rights Center et al., Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 20, 2004, ‘Considering’ four. 7 Cf. Matter of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 7, 2004, ‘Considering’ six; Matter of Urso Branco Prison, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 22, 2004, ‘Considering’ five; and Matter of Urso Branco Prison, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 29, 2002, ‘Considering’ five. 8 Cf. Matter of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 7, 2004, ‘Considering’ thirteen; Matter of Urso Branco Prison, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 22, 2004, ‘Considering’ six; and Matter of Urso Branco Prison, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 29, 2002, ‘Considering’ six.