5 authorities are under a duty to protect them.”27 Concerning persons in custody, time and time again the European Court has made the point that "it is incumbent on the State to account for any injuries suffered in custody, which obligation is particularly stringent where that individual dies."28 The Court has also held that "there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force."29 The State’s due diligence obligation also covers relations between or among individuals, as the European Court held in Osman v. United Kingdom (1998), by noting that in certain circumstances it may well imply a "positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual."30 15. In the present Matter of Urso Branco Prison, the State cannot disclaim international responsibility for human rights violations (the inmates’ rights to life and to humane treatment) for reasons of internal order having to do with its federal structure. In its August 27, 1998 judgment on reparations in the Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina, the Inter-American Court invoked “case law, which has stood unchanged for more than a century,” which holds that “a State cannot plead its federal structure to avoid complying with an international obligation” (par. 46). And its famous Advisory Opinion OC-16 (October 1, 1999) on The Right to Information on Consular Assistance. In the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, - a truly groundbreaking and historic decision that has been a source of inspiration to international jurisprudence in statu nascendi on the subject- the Inter-American Court held, on this very point, that States must comply with their obligations under conventions, "regardless of whether theirs is a federal or unitary structure." (par. 140 and operative paragraph 8). 16. In short, as the above-cited case law illustrates, no matter what the circumstance, the State has a due diligence obligation to prevent irreparable harm to persons under its jurisdiction and in its custody. Provisional measures of protection such as those that the Inter-American Court just adopted in the present Order on the Matter of Urso Branco Prison, serve to establish continual monitoring of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, based on a provision of a human rights treaty like the American Convention (Article 63(2)). As I had already anticipated in my Concurring Opinion in the Matter of The Communities of the Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó (pars. 6-8), such measures also contribute to the gradual establishment of a genuine right to humanitarian assistance. 27 . Cf., inter alia, European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Orhan v. Turkey, Judgment of June 18, 2002, Series A, No. 3645, par. 326; and ECtHR, Case of Aksoy v. Turkey, Judgment of November 26, 1996, paragraph 61; ECtHR, Case of Anguelova v. Bulgaria, Judgment of May 23, 2002, par. 110. 28 . ECtHR, Case of Paul and Audrey Edwards v. United Kingdom, Judgment of March 14, 2002, Series A, No. 3449, par. 56; ECtHR, Case of Avsar v. Turkey, Judgment of July 10, 2001, Series A, No. 2637, par. 391; ECtHR, Case of Keenan v. United Kingdom, Judgment of April 3, 2001, Series A, No. 2421, par. 91. 29 30 . ECtHR, Case of Cakici v. Turkey, Judgment of July 8, 1999, Series A, No. 1090, par. 86. . ECtHR, Case of Osman v. United Kingdom, Judgment of October 28, 1998, Series A, No. 1050, par. 115.