Prosecution Service Police. Under this tenor, this registry is meant for arrests carried out by agents of the Public Prosecution Service Police of the [Prosecutor General’s Office], parallel to the Administrative Register of Detentions.” 43. Regarding the foregoing, the representatives recalled “that in the case of the ecologist peasants, the prolonged and unlawful arrest and restraint were carried out by members of the military, and are not included in the Administrative Register of Detentions,” just as they are not included in the SIRED. Consequently, the representatives further stated that “[a]ditionally, it is relevant to mention that from the information presented, [they can] conclude that the SIRED did not guarantee access to [the] information referred to in roman numeral iii) of the operative paragraph at hand, keeping in mind that the goal of the measure ordered is precisely to avoid situations in which family members or other concerned persons cannot properly access information regarding the whereabouts of the person detained that is sufficient, up-to-date, and accurate.” 44. With respect to this issue, the representatives concluded by stating that “the State has not made available any information to reach a conclusion that it is organizing the adequate register of detentions performed by members of the armed forces, who continue making thousands of arrests without having the authority to do so and without an adequate system of control.” 45. For its part, the Commission “acknowledge[d] the information furnished by the State and value[d] its efforts to comply with this point. However, the Commission observe[d] that with regard to the Administrative Register of Detentions and the Approved Police Report, the State did not submit the documents relevant to these systems, which are necessary to properly understand their scope and operation, as well as their relationship to the SIRED. The Commission [took] note of the concerns expressed by the representatives regarding both the [Administrative Register of Detentions], as well as the SIRED in terms of the limitations in their scope and access to family members or persons close to the detainees, given their reserved nature. The Commission concluded by stating that “[it consider[ed] that it [was] necessary to have additional information on the points in question.” Considerations of the Court 46. In the Judgment, the Court observed that, pursuant to the General Law of the National Public Security System, the information contained in the Register may be provided to anyone who requests information about an individual under arrest, which allows for compliance with the purpose of assisting in the defense of the detainees’ rights. At that time, the Court deemed it appropriate to require the adoption of measures to ensure that increased public access to such information does not affect the right to private life - among other rights - of detainees. In light of the foregoing, the Court found that the following supplementary measures should be adopted in order to reinforce the operation and usefulness of this system: i) continuous updating; ii) interconnection between the database of the register and any other relevant databases, establishing a network that allows each detainee to be easily located; iii) guarantee that the register respects the requirements of access to information and 15