18 federal authorities, with the involvement of bodies with the capability of providing the technical criterion to determine the immediate measures designed to overcome the situation that has been the basis for the petition of said provisional measures. 14. That the duty to report to the Court on the implementation of measures is twofold in that compliance with said duty requires the formal submission of a document within the term set as well as the specific, true, current and detailed material reference to the issues that fall within the scope of said obligation.8 Any breach to this State’s duty is particularly serious because of the juridical nature of these measures.9 Even though the State has submitted —when and as required— most of its reports, it is necessary that the State keep on reporting to the Court specifically and concretely on the results obtained from the implementation of the measures. It is paramount that the priority measures referred to in Considering Clause No. 12 get reflected in the State’s reports describing the means, actions and goals set by the State in agreement with the specific needs of protection of the beneficiaries thereof, in such a manner that they give real sense and provide a continuum in those reports. In this sense, the role of the Inter-American Commission is particularly important so as to adequately and effectively follow up the implementation of the measures so ordered. 15. That, based on the foregoing, it is relevant to keep the provisional measures in force, by virtue of which the State has the obligation to protect the life and integrity of all the persons held in custody in the Mendoza Provincial Prison and those in the Gustavo André Unit, located in Lavalle, as well as any person found within said facilities, especially by means of the measures described both in the previous and in this present Order, among others (supra Having Seen Clauses No. 3 and 6). In this regard, the Court highlights the fact that at the hearing held on the date hereof in Brasilia (supra Having Seen Clause No. 50) the representatives, the Commission and the State agreed on the fact that the conditions of the referenced confinement centers have not undergone tangible improvement and on the need to keep said measures in full force and effect. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, by virtue of the authority granted by Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 25 and 29 of its Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: 8 Cfr., inter alia, Matter of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó, supra note 7, Considering Clause No. 16; Matter of Luisiana Ríos et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión – RCTC). Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 12, 2005, Considering Clause No.17; and Matter of Luis Uzcátegui. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 2, 2003, Considering Clause No. 12. Cfr., inter alia, Matter of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó, supra note 7, Considering Clause No. 16; Matter of Peace Community of San José de Apartadó, supra note 1, Considering Clause 12; and Matter of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 15, 2005, Considering Clause 11. 9