CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE SERGIO GARCÍA-RAMÍREZ REGARDING THE RESOLUTION OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ON THE PROVISIONAL MEASURES RELATED TO INHABITANTS OF THE MONAGAS JUDICIAL CONFINEMENT CENTER (“LA PICA”) (VENEZUELA), OF FEBRUARY 9, 2006. 1. In different public hearings and concurring or separate opinions I have expressed my points of view regarding the infringement of human rights in places of confinement for adults or minors. I refer to what I have expounded on those occasions regarding the situation of inmates, their rights, the State’s position as a guarantor and the duties arising therefrom. 2. I reiterate the concern aroused by the problems that prevail in numerous prisons located in different countries of the Continent, which the Inter-American Court has examined when deciding cases or provisional measures. These problems are extremely serious, they have multiplied themselves –at least nowadays they are more perceptible; they have always existed and have been of considerable importance—and they constitute one of the most dramatic scenes in the general picture of human rights violations. The characteristics of the latter, in prisons, are particularly dramatic. In the hearing on the Monagas judicial confinement center, an Agent used the adjective "Dantesque" to describe the situation in prisons. He was right. And this appreciation is certainly not limited to the case under discussion. 3. In view of this truly serious situation, which has not been solved in a general and systematic manner, we should draw the attention of States, national societies and the Organization of American States itself. I mentioned this in the hearing held today in San José to examine the facts that took place at "La Pica" prison. 4. Along these lines, I deem it relevant, and even indispensable, to carry out an urgent continental process of reflection upon this topic, so as to examine and adopt measures to immediately improve the present situation and provide thorough solutions to avoid the persistence and multiplication of the problems observed in prisons and constant human rights violations, either at the hands of State agents or third parties –the inmates themselves or other persons—whose behavior is not controlled by the public entities charged with guaranteeing security and order in prisons, with specific observance of legality and legitimacy in the treatment of inmates. 5. I understand that it is necessary to adopt numerous measures, of different kinds, to deal with petitioners’ claims in these cases –and to secure the scope of the aims that the States themselves have set and that the Court recognizes and appreciates--, and I am also aware of the complex nature of many of the measures that should be executed and of the time and resources that such an execution would require. 6. In any case, I have deemed it necessary to remark –as I have also done in the hearings and opinions I mentioned before and on which I insist— that the State