11 1. That Brazil is a State Party to the American Convention since September 25, 1992 and, according to Article 62 of the Convention, it acknowledged the adversarial jurisdiction of the Court on December 10, 1998. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention sets forth that, “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. Regarding to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 3. That under the terms of Article 25 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, […] 2. Regarding to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission. […] 6. The beneficiaries of provisional or urgent measures granted by the President may submit their observations to the State’s report directly to the Court. The InterAmerican Convention of Human Rights shall submit observations to the State report and to the observations of the beneficiaries of said measures or their representatives. […] 4. That through the Decision of November 30, 2005, the Inter-American Court again requested the State to “immediately adopt the necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of all the children and adolescents institutionalized in FEBEM´s Tatuapé Complex, as well as the life of all the people within said compound.” Furthermore, the Court requested the State to inform “on the results of the meeting held between the parties on December 15, 2005 in the city of São Paulo.” 5. That this Court understands that on December 16, 2006, the State and the representatives, with the assistance of the members of the Inter-American Commission, held a working meeting in the city of São Paulo, in order to dialogue on the mechanisms tending to face the problems presented on the matter under discussion. However, it regrets that the parties did not consensually arrive to an agreement regarding the constitution of a working team for the implementation of the measures (supra Having Seen clauses No. 4 and 5). 6. That, based on the information provided by the State, the representatives and the Commission (supra Having Seen clauses No. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15), it is clearly seen that, despite certain measures have been taken by the State to improve the confinement conditions (supra Having Seen clauses No. 5, 8 and 15) and the decrease of violence episodes, a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and possible irreparable damage of the rights to life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries of the said measures still persists. Particularly, violence episodes among the inmates, such as the death of Roni Cesar Mustafá de Souza, which occurred on January 27, 2006 (supra Having Seen clauses No. 6 and 7), and of Ricardo Pereira Cunha, which occurred on May 28 of the same year (supra Having Seen clause No. 13); apart from possible aggressions on the part of security agents, such as the injuries caused to youngster Djalbison dos Santos Soares, who lost his right eye vision due to a rubber bullet allegedly shot by one of the security officers (supra