23 System remains attentive to the situation of the Mendoza Penitentiaries through the action of one of its bodies, to which corresponds the duty to determine the future course of the proceeding. 52. Without prejudice to what this Tribunal rules, it should be reiterated that Article 1(1) of the American Convention sets forth the general obligations of States Parties to respect the rights and liberties enshrined in the Convention and to guarantee the free and full exercise of these rights for all individuals subject to their jurisdiction. The Court especially highlights the State’s position to guarantee with regard to individuals deprived of liberty,27 by virtue of which penitentiary authorities exercise total control over them, making the general obligations take on a particular shade of meaning that obliges the State to provide inmates with the minimum conditions compatible with their dignity during the time they remain in the detention centers, with the purpose of protecting and guaranteeing their rights to life and personal integrity.28 Because of this, and independent of the existence of specific provisional measures,29 the State is especially obligated to guarantee the rights of individuals under circumstances of deprivation of liberty.30 Likewise, in this particular matter, the Court recalls that in keeping with international law, the State must ensure that the security measures taken in prison facilities include adequate training of the penitentiary personnel who provide security in the prison and the effectiveness of those mechanisms for preventing prison violence, such as the ability to react to incidents of violence or emergencies inside the blocks. The State must ensure that the inspections are done properly and carried out periodically, intended to prevent violence and eliminate risk through adequate and effective control of the interior of the blocks on the part of the penitentiary guards, and that the results of these inspections be duly and quickly communicated to the competent authorities. 53. As far as the minimum conditions of detention, it is important to recall that the State must in principle maintain adequate installations, the separation of inmates into categories, and access to adequate health, hygiene, and education services, as well as offer measures for recreation and mental and physical health to the individuals deprived of liberty.31 Likewise, the State must ensure that the personnel in charge of security have the training and tools necessary to do their jobs with respect for the rights of those detained, in 27 Cf. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 221; Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, para. 95, and Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 78. Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 60, and Matter of the Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Court of May 2, 2008, Considering 19, and Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 8, 2008, Considering 11. 28 29 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Court of January 15, 1988, Considering 3; Matter of the Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Court of May 2, 2008, Considering 19, and Matter of Carlos Nieto et al. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of August 5, 2008, Considering 3. 30 Cf. Matter of Natera Balboa Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 1, 2009, Considering 14, and Matter of Guerrero Larez. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of November 17, 2009, Considering 13. 31 Cf. Case of Montero Arangueren et al. (Catia Prison) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 85 to 99.