Grupo de Escolta Tática Prisional [Tatica Prison Guard Group] would enter the UNIS at dawn, using pepper spray, and undressing the adolescents, pouring cold water on them, and beating them; c) that, in the last months of 2010, the following events took place: i) on November 12, 2010, a riot broke out in the "Despertar" units, and a homicide attempt took place during a fight between inmates of unit 2; ii) on December 13, 2010, a riot broke out in which several inmates climbed to the roof of the Facility; iii) On January 31, 2011, before an escape attempt, external security agents of UNIS entered the Facility and assaulted the adolescents; as a result, five of them were injured and were taken to the Department of Legal Medicine for a forensic examination. According to the explanation given by the responsible authorities of the Facility, there was an escape attempt and, therefore, external security agents had to enter Wing C, which provoked the confrontation with the adolescents. However, from the stories of the adolescents, it appears that the injuries they suffered were inflicted on their backs, thereby raising doubts as to the alleged confrontation. iv) On February 1, 2011, an adolescent was injured by other inmates in Despertar Unit I; another riot broke out due to the lack of medical care to an adolescent to which a local representative of the "Pastoral del Menor" [Ministry of the Minor] was called to intervene. v) During the visits made by the representatives in the months of November 2010 and February 2011, they verified the existence of “floating” adolescents. These are adolescents whose lives are threatened and therefore spend the whole day in the facility’s court yard and are taken to their cell only at night, and d) that, despite the reforms made by the State at the Internment Facility, its infrastructure is still inadequate, in light of the existence of deteriorated structures, unhealthy, damp spaces, without natural air and light, with leaks and garbage accumulation. Moreover, some adolescents were subject to a harsh discipline regime, similar to the one of a maximumsecurity prison, with very little opportunity to be outdoors, with little to no activity. 15. The arguments of the Commission to base the request for provisional measures, in which it pointed out that: a) “there is sufficient evidence to consider that the State, through the authorities of the Socio-Educational Internment Facility, is not exercising an effective control over said premises,” and therefore, “it is not capable of ensuring the life and physical integrity of the people confined there.” To this end, “the management of the facility, on many occasions, has denied access to certain areas of the UNIS to petitioners and also to the Ministry of the Minor and also to a commission of judges of the National Council of Justice, under the argument that it could not guarantee the safety of the visitors"; b) “the level of chaos and the frequency with which these type of violent events and escapes occurred in the UNIS are absolutely incompatible with 3