4 the language of Article 63(2) of the American Convention. Hence the Inter-American Court’s adoption of these provisional measures. 11. In effect, in this Order of July 7, 2004, the Court has expressed its “concern” over the fact 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. (...)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 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 (...). (...) 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 preserve, independently of whatever other measures are gradually adopted in the area of prison policy. (...) (...)The State must adopt forthwith the measures necessary to ensure that no one in the Urso Branco Prison is either killed or injured.(...)23 12. It seems self-evident to me that the fundamental principle of respect for human dignity applies to all human beings, no matter what their circumstance. That includes those deprived of their liberty. This is the direction that the international jurisprudence on the subject of human rights protection has taken. Indeed, the jurisprudence constante of the Inter-American Court has been to remind the State that because it is in charge of prison institutions, it is the guarantor of the rights of the detainees who are in its custody.24 13. The Inter-American Court has held that “every person deprived of her or his liberty has the right to live in detention conditions compatible with her or his personal dignity, and the State must guarantee to that person the right to life and to humane treatment."25 That being the case, the Court added, the State’s “power is not unlimited, as it has the duty, at all times, of applying procedures that are in accordance with the Law and that respect the fundamental rights of all individuals under its jurisdiction (...) [I]f a person was detained in good health conditions and subsequently died, the State has the obligation to provide (…) information and evidence pertaining to what happened to the detainee."26 14. The European Court of Human Rights has followed the same line of reasoning, having repeatedly held that “Detained persons are in a vulnerable position and the 23 . Considering 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the present Order. 24 . Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), Case of Bulacio v. Argentina, Judgment of September 18, 2003, Series C, No.100, pars. 126-127 and 138); IACtHR, Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, Judgment of June 21, 2002, Series C, No. 94, par. 165; IACtHR, Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, Judgment of November 25, 2000, Series C, No. 70, par. 171; Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru, Judgment of January 1, 1995, Series C, No.20, par. 60. 25 . 195. 26 IACtHR, Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, Judgment of May 30, 1999, Series C, No. 52, par. . IACtHR, Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, Judgment of June 7, 2003, Series C, No. 99, pars. 86 and 111.