21 46. For all these reasons, the Court views positively the efforts made by the State and the active participation of the representatives of the beneficiaries and finds that the factual situation that led to the adoption and maintenance of these measures to the benefit of individuals deprived of liberty in the Mendoza Provincial Penitentiary and the Gustavo André unit, in Lavalle, does not persist. The situation of risk facing these individuals has evidently not been eliminated, but the situation of vulnerability faced by individuals deprived of liberty is a characteristic of any detention center. The information presented by the State, the Commission, and the representatives does not allow for the conclusion that the situation currently facing the inmates in the Mendoza Provincial Penitentiaries or the specific factors of risk that they could be facing meet the standard of gravity verified previously. In any case, the urgency and imminence of the situation no longer coincide. 47. This Tribunal is aware that the alleviation and correction of the situation present in the Mendoza penitentiaries is a short, medium, and long term process requiring a collection of actions directed toward rectifying prison and detention conditions on the part of federal and provincial authorities in the administrative, judicial, and legislative areas. Many of these issues do not fall under the supervision of the implementation of provisional measures. Because of this and for the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds it appropriate to lift the provisional measures. 48. Finally, the Court has been informed that in the petition submitted to the InterAmerican Commission known as "Case of the Inmates of the Mendoza Penitentiary," the State and the representatives reached a friendly settlement agreement on August 28, 2007.25 According to information provided by the State, that agreement was approved domestically through “Decree No. 2740 ratified through [L]aw [No.] 7.930 of September 16, 2008." The State reported on the measures taken toward complying with that agreement, in particular measures of pecuniary and legal reparations and measures of satisfaction;26 it expressed that the Commission has not issued the corresponding report 25 Cf. The referenced "friendly settlement agreement" in the proceeding before the Commission contains the following sections: I) recognition of the Argentine State’s responsibility for the facts; II) pecuniary measures of redress; III) nonpecuniary measures of reparation, including legal measures and other measures of satisfaction; IV) action plan and budget; and V) ratification and circulation. Friendly settlement agreement (case file provisional measures, Volume XIV, pages 4172 to 4176) 26 With regard to the pecuniary measures, the State reported that in Article 2 of Decree 2.740/07, ratified by Provincial Law No. 7.930, it recognized the responsibility of the Government of the Province of Mendoza in "the cases of violent deaths and serious attacks on personal integrity for having failed to guarantee the minimal conditions of security, protection, and physical integrity for the inmates," submitting the case to an ad hoc arbitration tribunal to determine the corresponding indemnities. This arbitration tribunal was to meet and rule in June of 2010 in Mendoza. The State also indicated that the friendly settlement included several nonpecuniary reparatory measures, among them legal measures in which the Province of Mendoza committed to submitting four bills to the legislature, namely: i) a bill that would create an ombudsman’s office for individuals deprived of liberty, while another would create a local mechanism for prevention in the framework of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; these were combined into a single bill creating "an external body to oversee the detention conditions of those deprived of liberty,” ii) a bill creating the Ombudsman's Office of the People of Mendoza, and iii) a bill creating an official provincial public defenders office for proceedings on sentence execution. All these projects were to be submitted before the provincial legislature. However, the State indicated that they have not been addressed yet by the plenary of that body. With regard to other measures of satisfaction, the State indicated that there is a commemorative plaque in Penitentiary Complex 1, Boulogne Sur Mer, making reference to the precautionary and provisional measures before the Inter-American System. Likewise, there is a measure to guarantee participation of the petitioners in the preparation of an "action plan on penitentiary policy to allow for the establishment of short, medium, and long term public policies." Toward doing so, the State had scheduled a meeting for this past