23 59. The State’s position as guarantor is the basis for all those measures that, under international human rights law, States must effectively take to respect and ensure the rights of persons deprived of liberty. 50 60. In the case of Neira Alegría et al, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court”) wrote that “every person deprived of her or his liberty has the right to live in detention conditions compatible with her or his personal dignity, and the State must guarantee to that person the right to life and to humane treatment. Consequently, since the State is the institution responsible for detention establishments, it is the guarantor of these rights of the prisoners.” 51 Similarly, the provisional measures ordered in the Matter of the Urso Branco Prison, the Court held that “[i]n light of the responsibility of the State to adopt security measures to protect persons who are under its jurisdiction, the Court deems that this duty is more evident with respect to persons detained in a State detention center.” 52 In addressing the fact that persons in detention are subordinate to the apparatus of the State, in the Bulacio case the Court wrote that “State authorities exercise total control over persons under their custody. The way a detainee is treated must be subject to the closest scrutiny, taking into account the detainee’s vulnerability.” 53 61. this concept: Later, in the case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute,” the Court elaborated upon The State has a special role to play as guarantor of the rights of those deprived of their freedom, as the prison authorities exercise heavy control or command over the persons in their custody. So there is a special relationship and interaction of subordination between the person deprived of his liberty and the State; typically the State can be rigorous in regulating what the prisoner’s rights and obligations are, and determines what the circumstances of the internment will be; the inmate is prevented from satisfying, on his own, certain basic needs that are essential if one is to live with dignity.. Given this unique relationship and interaction of subordination between an inmate and the State, the latter must undertake a number of special responsibilities and initiatives to ensure that persons deprived of their liberty have the conditions necessary to live with dignity and to enable them to enjoy those rights that may not be restricted under any circumstances or those whose restriction is not a necessary consequence of their deprivation of liberty and is, therefore, impermissible. Otherwise, deprivation of liberty would effectively strip the inmate of all his rights, which is unacceptable. 54 62. More than a decade ago, the Inter-American Commission wrote the following in its Report No. 41/99 on the merits of the Case of the Minors in Detention: 50 IACHR, Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights, approved December 31, 2009, paragraph 151; IACHR, Special Report on the Human Rights Situation at the Challapalca Prison in Peru, approved October 9, 2003, paragraph 113. 51 I/A C, Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, paragraph 60. A holding reiterated in: I/A Court H.R., Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, paragraph. 195; I/A Court H.R., Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, paragraph 78; I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, paragraph 87; I/A Court H.R., Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, paragraph 165; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, paragraph 126. 52 I/A Court H.R., Provisional Measures in the Matter of the Urso Branco Prison. Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, June 18, 2002. Consideranda 8. 53 126. I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, paragraph I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, paragraphs 152 and 153. 54