8 everyone, - both the organs and agents of the State, of public power, as well as the individuals themselves (including in inter-individual relations, where grave breaches also do occur)".22 17. In effect, in its jurisprudence constante, the Inter-American Court has mentioned that the State, being responsible for detention facilities, is the guarantee of the rights of detainees under its custody.23 Thus, the State has the inescapable erga omnes obligation to protect all individuals under its custody, even in inter-individual relations. In this regard, the Inter-American Court has ruled 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.”24 Therefore, as the Court added, the State’s power to keep public order is “not unlimited”, because it has the obligation, at all times, to apply procedures that are in accordance with the law and to respect the fundamental rights of each individual in its jurisdiction (...)".25 18. In sum, as is evident from my above considerations, and from the cited case law, in any and all circumstances the State has a due diligence obligation aimed at preventing irreparable damage to persons under its jurisdiction and custody. Provisional protection measures such as those adopted by the Inter-American Court in this Order regarding the matter of the Penitentiary in Araraquara contribute to continuously monitoring a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that may infringe irreparable harm upon human beings, in accordance with a provision of a human rights treaty such as the American Convention (Article 63(2)). 19. As if in anticipation of this Court’s Order, such continuous monitoring was agreed upon by the three parties that took part in the fruitful public hearing concerning this case, held the day before yesterday, September 28, 2006, at the Court's seat in San José de Costa Rica. Thus, I dare nurture the confidence that the Brazilian State (represented in the hearing both by federal Government authorities and by State authorities from São Paulo), will comply with the provisional protection measures set forth in this Order, in keeping with the valuable and respectable Brazilian legal tradition. 20. The erga omnes nature of Provisional Measures ordered by the Court becomes more evident and relevant in a context such as that of this case concerning the Penitentiary in Araraquara, which is tainted by a high level of chronic violence, as acknowledged and highlighted in the hearing the day before yesterday. In reply to one of my questions, the State’s agent pointed out that, only in São Paulo, the total number of prisoners adds up to 150 thousand, reaching close to 380 thousand overall 22 . A. A. Cançado Trindade’s speech at the Krakov (August 2005), still unpublished (due to be published in the next volume of the Annuaire of the above-mentioned Institut). 23 . Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Bulacio v. Argentina, Judgment of September 18, 2003, Series C, No. 100, paras. 126–127 and 138): Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamine et al. v. Trinidad y Tobago, Judgment of June 21, 2002, Series C, No. 94, para. 165; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala, Judgment of November 25, 2000, Series C, No. 70, para. 171; Case of Neira-Alegría et al. v. Peru, Judgment of January 19, 1994, Series C, No. 20, para. 60. 24 . 195. IACHR, Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, Judgment of May 30, 1999, Series C, No. 52, para. 25 IACHR, Case of J. H. Sanchez v. Honduras, Judgment of June 7, 2003, Series C, No. 99, para. 111. .