13 Medellin Office of the Public Prosecutor 60 was in charge of the corresponding investigation of the aforementioned beneficiary for the crime of manufacturing, trafficking, and carrying firearms or munitions. Colombia reported on the different steps taken in that investigation, among them the legalization of the arrest warrant for Mr. Juan David Naranjo by the corresponding Guarantees Oversight Judge on finding that “it had been carried out in keeping with the regulations sets forth for that proceeding." Finally, the State insisted that "the negligent actions of beneficiary Juan David Naranjo put his life and personal integrity at risk and increased […] the level of risk he was facing." 39. For their part, the representatives reiterated that Juan David Naranjo Jiménez’ situation "is not related to the community activities of his mother, Mery Naranjo Jiménez, nor with the protective measures." 40. The Commission took note of the information provided by the State on the reasons for the detention of beneficiary Juan David Naranjo Jiménez. Likewise, it expressed appreciation over the agreement to transfer the beneficiary to another penitentiary and asked the State to submit updated information "on the specific protection provided to that beneficiary." 41. The Court recalls that in its Order of January 31, 2008, it asked the State to submit specific information on the detention of beneficiary Juan David Naranjo. Regarding this, it observes with satisfaction the information submitted by the State on this issue. However, it notes that updated information has not been submitted to the Tribunal on the protective measures implemented to the benefit of that beneficiary, given that on being imprisoned in a detention center, he was not protected by the "collective" measures of protection implemented to the benefit of his relatives, as the State itself indicated with regard to the earlier detention of that beneficiary (supra Considering 37). 42. Regarding this, the Court finds it appropriate to recall that the State has the obligation to guarantee the free and full exercise of these rights for all individuals subject to its jurisdiction. These obligations apply not only with regard to State power, but also with regard to the actions of private third parties. Special duties are derived from these general obligations, to be determined according to the particular needs for protection of the bearer of the right, whether due to the bearer’s personal condition or the specific situation facing the individual,20 as is the case with this detention. This Tribunal has found that the State is in a special position to guarantee rights with regard to individuals deprived of liberty due to the fact that penitentiary authorities exercise total control over those individuals. In this situation, the State's general obligations to respect and guarantee rights takes on a particular shade of meaning that obliges the State to provide inmates with the minimum conditions compatible with their dignity during the time they remain in the detention centers, with the purpose of protecting and guaranteeing their rights to life and personal integrity.21 Likewise, the Court has indicated that independent of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is especially obligated to guarantee the rights of individuals under circumstances of deprivation of liberty.22 20 Cf Case of the “Pueblo Bello Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 111; and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 37, and Matter of the Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Court of November 25, 2009, Considering 10. 21 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 60; Matter of the children and adolescents deprived of liberty in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of the FEBEM. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Court of November 25, 2008, Considering 12, and Matter of the Urso Branco Prison, supra footnote 20, Considering 10. 22 Cf. Matter of the Mendoza Penitentiaries. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the Court of March 22, 2007, Considering 16; Matter of Natera Balboa. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 1, 2009, Considering 14, and Matter of the “Cárcel de Tocorón” Penitentiary, supra footnote 3, Considering 13.