14 47. That as to the duty to adopt, within a reasonable time, the necessary measures to adapt prison conditions to the corresponding international standards (operative paragraphs twelve of the Judgment delivered in the case of Fermín Ramírez and nine of the Judgment delivered in the case of Raxcacó Reyes), the State pointed out the “Prison System Act” was passed by means of Decree Nº 33-2006 of the Congress of the Republic and that it has been published in the Diario de Centro América on October 6, 2006, and that said act regulates the Guatemalan National Penitentiary System, in particular, the pre-trial detention centers and the centers for compliance with convictions of penalties. Said act was a complement to the “Internal Regulations of the Farms for Rehabilitation and Compliance with the Convictions under the Charge of the General Bureau of the Prison System” (Reglamento Interno de las Granjas Modelo de Rehabilitación y Cumplimiento de Condenas a Cargo de la Dirección General del Sistema Penitenciario), as published in the Diario de Centro America on November 29, 2006. Furthermore, during the hearing, the State informed that there have been proposals to build pre-trial penitentiary centers and convictions centers, remodel other centers and open up new areas, in order to comply with international standards. Moreover, that at the moment, working and educational programs have been implemented in several centers and 19 centers offer basic literacy programs and some of them, basic and higher education programs. 48. That the representatives stated that on April 6, 2007 the Prison System Act entered into force. Nevertheless, by December, 2007, the act has not been implemented yet, since the budget has not been assigned nor the necessary regulations ordered. Besides, they sustained that said act is discriminatory and does not comply with international standards, since it establishes Maximum Security Centers where there are no social re-insertion programs and the regulation of said system is vested on the penitentiary authority. Moreover, those people sentenced to death have no possibility to commute their punishments. Likewise, they stated that three new prisons were built but the locations of such centers are still unknown. 49. That the Commission took note of the legislative reforms carried out by the State in this regard, but it considered that its effectiveness and the compliance with the decision of the Court must be valued upon the application of the new legislation and the effective improvement of the general prison conditions. Therefore, it expressed its concern since even though progress have been made in order to improve prison conditions at the national level, the progress is minimum and the new prisons that were built do not comply with the minimum standards. 50. That this Court truly values the progress made in the planning of other centers. In turn, the Court is aware that the relief and amendment of the situation in the prisons of a State is a short, medium or long-term procedure, that calls for a set of measures of several authorities, that is, administrative, judicial and even legislative, addressed to heal the prison and detention conditions. This Tribunal could not evaluate this set of measures, in all its ranges and dimensions, within the framework of a procedure for monitoring compliance with a specific judgment. Notwithstanding, the State cannot allege domestic legal reasons to help adopting final, specific and effective measures in order to adapt the prisons to the international standards. In that way, the Court deems it is necessary to request the State that, in the next briefs, submit specific and updated information on the current condition of the situation and the measures adopted to that end, especially, the main prison problems and the specific measures adopted or to be implemented.