15 defendants. Additionally, on April 13, 2009, the State was convicted in a civil action to reform the Penitentiary and hire more correctional officers in the term of 120 days. Furthermore, of the thirteen proceedings, which resulted in a conviction regarding the facts occurred at Urso Branco, only one was allegedly instituted against public agents. 29. That regarding the monitoring system of administrative and judicial proceedings and of police investigations through a webpage, the representatives stated that the information published thereat is not out of date and incomplete. The listed administrative proceedings relate to facts of 2008 and 2009 only; police investigations refer to facts occurred between October 17, 1998 and December 4, 2007, and judicial proceedings refer to crimes committed between October 17, 1998 and September 24, 2005. 30. That the representatives initially pointed out that the list of people killed at the Penitentiary submitted by the State (supra Considering clause No. 27) contains serious inaccuracies when compared with other lists earlier provided. In this sense, they expressed that there is no certainty as to the number of victims, their identity and the circumstances of their death. Particularly, there are divergences regarding 26 deaths and some of the deceased have been identified with more than one name. 31. That the Commission expressed its concern on the existing impunity regarding the continuous claims of torture occurred at the Prison. It stated that it expected the State to keep on improving its judicial apparatus in order not only to investigate, clarify and punish these facts, but also to eradicate any possibility which may allow the repetition of the violence originated by the State agents. It further pointed out that it did not have enough information regarding the investigation of the violence facts of cell H4, which took place in August 2009. 32. That the Court again states the duty of the State to investigate said facts as a guarantee measure of the fundamental rights to life and physical integrity. Notwithstanding the above, in the context of these provisional measures and as in other cases8, it shall not consider the effectiveness of the investigations performed, nor the alleged negligence on the part of the State in said investigations. Said analysis corresponds to the exam of the merits of case No. 12,568, at present submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (supra Considering clause No. 13). * * * 33. That the State informed that on October 7, 2008, the Procuraduría General de la República [State Attorney General] considered the “veracity of the arguments of human rights violations [at] Urso Branco and submitted a request of federal takeover against the state of Rondônia before the Supremo Tribunal Federa” (Supreme Court or STF, according to the Portuguese acronym). In November, 2008, the State rejected the takeover request and supplied evidentiary documents on the measures implemented in the scope of the penitentiary system. Furthermore, the State 8 Cf. Matter of the Children deprived of liberty in FEBEM. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 3, 2007, Considering clause No. seventeen; Matter of Carlos Nieto-Palma et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 26, 2009, Considering clause No. fifteen, and Matter of Millacura-Llaipén et al. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008, Considering clause No. sixteen.