15 9. Although the prison riot was brought to an end in late April 2004, the InterAmerican Commission, the petitioners and the State all agree that the situation at the prison is unacceptable. The Inter-American Commission and the petitioners have stressed the point that security, infrastructure, conditions of incarceration, and health and hygiene are all unsatisfactory at the facility and could trigger another inmate riot, and more murders and acts of violence. 10. The information recently provided by the Inter-American Commission, the petitioners and the State, and their statements during the public hearing held on June 28, 2004, demonstrate that the prevailing situation at Urso Branco Prison is one of extreme gravity and urgency to the point that the lives and personal safety of the inmates at the prison and all those who enter there, including visitors and security personnel who work there, are in serious peril and highly vulnerable. 11. Given the gravity of the situation at the Urso Branco Prison, the State must immediately adopt all measures necessary to ensure that the rights to life and to the integrity of one’s person are preserved, independently of whatever other measures are gradually adopted in the area of prison policy. Consequently, the State must again be called upon to adopt forthwith the provisional measures necessary to preserve the life and personal safety of all the inmates at that prison and of all persons who enter there, including visitors and corrections officers who work there. The State must also keep the Court informed of the adoption of those measures, so that the Court might examine compliance. 12. The State must adopt forthwith the measures necessary to ensure that no one in Urso Branco Prison is either killed or injured. These measures include steps to prevent riots or other situations that upset order in that prison from developing again. In correcting disruptions to public law and order of the kind that happened in the instant case, the State must adhere to and apply domestic laws in its efforts to restore law and order, provided those domestic laws and the actions taken in application thereof are in compliance with the relevant international human rights norms on the matter.9 As it has previously held, this Court recognizes “the existence of the authority, and even obligation, of the State to ‘guarantee its security and to maintain public order’.” Nevertheless, the power of the State in this matter is not unlimited; the State must conduct its actions “within limits and according to procedures that preserve both public safety and the fundamental rights of the human person.”10 Accordingly, the Court considers that the conduct of the State in matters of prison security and safety is subject to certain limits, such that “[d]iscipline and order shall be maintained with firmness, but with no more restriction than is necessary for safe custody and well-ordered community life.”11 9 Cf. Matter of Urso Branco Prison, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 22, 2004, considering ten; Case of Caracazo. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, par. 127; Case of Hilaire, Constantine, Benjamin et al.. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, par. 217; and Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, par. 67. 10 Cf. Case of Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 22, 2004, ‘Considering’ ten; Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, par. 124; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, par. 86. 11 United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, held in Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council in its