on the measures taken in response to the affirmations at the domestic level that what happened was part of a systematic practice.” In addition, even though the Commission did not indicate the specific information to which it was referring, it alleged that, in the context of the provisional measures, “information [existed] concerning the actions of the prison guards against the inmates,” to which should be added “the information reported to the Court in March 2011 concerning torture committed by prison guards – not only as regards seven of them – as well as concerning the numerous statements by inmates, their next of kin, and public officials indicating that what was recorded on video was not a isolated event but is a constant within the prisons and that the inmates do not report it for fear of reprisals.” Finally, it alleged that the “information on the culture of violence, irresponsibility and indiscipline of the prison guards, as well as the deficient training of prison staff” should be added to the case file. c) Regarding the alleged actual detention conditions in the Mendoza Prisons 13. The Commission advised that problems still exist arising from the actual detention conditions of the inmates of the San Felipe and Boulogne Sur Mer Units, such as the failure to provide cleaning materials and adequate food, together with the absence of activities for the prisoners, except for a two-hour visit once a week. 14. The Commission also indicated that, added to the alleged acts of torture and the evidence of a systematic pattern of violence by state agents, “the most recent information regarding fights and mistreatment reveals that violence continues among the inmates – the central issue of the provisional measures while they were in force – and this means that the threats to life and integrity persist.” In particular, the Commission, based on the reports of the petitioners, advised of confrontations among inmates in the San Felipe and Boulogne Sur Mer Units. 15. Regarding the detention conditions, the State referred to several projects that are being implemented in the province of Mendoza that relate to the prison situation. In particular, it mentioned: (i) the “Mendoza Penitentiary School” project to provide prison personnel with permanent education and training on the relevant international human rights standards, and (ii) implementation of health care programs for the inmates. 16. With regard to the fights and acts of violence, the State declared that: (i) they constitute “conflicts within the prisons, which do not involve the responsibility of prison staff”; (ii) effective measures had been taken to ensure the integrity of the inmates affected by acts of violence, and (iii) the inmates had been attended by health professionals, both at the time of the events and also in the following days to monitor the evolution of the injuries suffered. 17. In its latest report, the State referred to diverse construction and repair work in several pavilions of the Boulogne Sur Mer Unit and the San Felipe Unit that would result in improved conditions and increased capacity. In addition, it provided figures on the numbers of inmates who were working or receiving job training and indicated that, by monitoring their health and introducing preventive health care, it had been possible to make considerable improvements in the quality of life of the inmates, their next of kin, and the prison staff. 8