3 of the threat and the characteristics and perspectives of such) taking into account the specific context". 12. It is evident that the “purpose of ‘avoidance of irreparable damage’ (and even – I add – extreme seriousness and urgency) is often related to the nature and content of the rights under threat". From this, it is naturally that the Court emphasizes on the protection of life and integrity. Nevertheless, it is not convenient to exclude the possibility of ordering measures (based on the same situations of extreme seriousness, urgency and possible irreparable damage, that would be analyzed in kind) in the hypothesis of other rights, whenever there are determining conditions. The Court has delivered an opinion regarding this issue on a previous occasion. 13. As a member of the Inter-American Court I have taken part of hearing an increasing number of cases concerning people deprived of liberty in situations of extreme seriousness which call for urgent assistance and which may result in irreparable damage for those people. In the last years, the number of requests for provisional measures related to prison problems in American countries has increased. This issue, so relevant and disturbing, has been subject-matter of special designation by the Court before political bodies of the OAS: 14. Every time I have taken part in this kind of issues, as member or as President of the Inter-American Court, in public hearings or through written opinions, I have made emphasis on the absolute need for the State to provide immediate and effective protection to the life and integrity of the inmates. These are the interests and rights that are at greater risk in confinement situations. From that the expression: “to prevent even one more death …” (cf. my opinions corresponding to provisional measures ordered in favor of inmates, in Provisional Measures regarding Urso Branco Prison (Brazil) of July 4, 2004, in García Ramírez, Issues of the Inter-American caselaw on human rights. Private Opinions, ITESO, Guadalajara/Universidad Iberoamericana, Puebla/Universidad Iberoamericana, Ciudad de Mexico/ Universidad Autónoma de Guanajuato, Guadalajara, México, 2005. p. 367 and subs.) 15. There is no and should be any reason for the State to elude from the urgent duty to protect the life and integrity of individuals who are subjected to its immediate, complete and constant control and lack, by themselves, for the effective ability of selfdetermination and defense. 16. In “total institutions” where a person’s liberty is de jure and de facto abolished – or radically limited --, the role of guarantor of the State is particularly intense (role that comprises, in kind, recognition, respect and guarantee). From there that it is reasonable to require that the State must avoid, immediately and absolutely, losing human lives as a consequence of violent conditions ruling in prisons, as the result of a direct action by State's agents, or as actions of other people, that the State should avoid and prevent. 17. I consider it is appropriate that the Court has consolidated the judicial control over the provisional measures in the matter of El Rodeo precisely on those measures “that may be necessary to protect the life and integrity of all the people deprived of liberty” in whatever confinement premises, without mentioning this time -- as I have done on other occasions -- a large relation of provisions regarding the prison system. These measures have full justification, but it will be difficult to apply them in an immediate and radical manner, as it should be in order to protect the life and integrity of inmates, subjected to serious threats that call for urgent assistance.