7 assume in its position as guarantor, and in order to protect and guarantee the right to life and physical integrity of those deprived of liberty, is that of [seeking] them the minimum conditions compatible with their dignity as they remain in detention centers.”5 Thus, regardless of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is especially obliged to guarantee the rights of the people in circumstances of deprivation of liberty.6 12. That the Court, within its adjudicatory jurisdiction, tried the case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela,7 in which it held the State responsible for the prison conditions of such premises and ordered, inter alia, that: 145. […] as a guarantee of non-repetition, the State [must], within a reasonable time, take all necessary actions to allow prison conditions to conform to international standards. 146. In particular, the State must guarantee that the living conditions of the inmates are the result of the respect due to their dignity as human beings; including, inter alia: a) bed space that meets minimum standards; b) accommodation which is ventilated and naturally lit; c) regular access to clean toilets and showers securing toilet privacy; d) adequate, timely and sufficient food and health care; and e) access to educational, employment and other opportunities to assist inmates towards a law abiding and self supporting life. 13. That, apart from the mentioned case, the situation of three Venezuelan prisons have been brought to the Court’s attention (Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center, Monagas Judicial Confinement Center “La Pica” and the Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region “Uribana Prison”), with regard to which the Tribunal has considered relevant to order provisional measures. These matters present situations similar to the one shown by the Commission in the Rodeo Prison. 14. That according to the information provided by the Commission in this matter, the assessment made by the Tribunal regarding the three Venezuelan prisons with regard to which it has ordered provisional measures and above all, the decision of the Court in the contentious case at issue (supra Considering clause twelve), the situation in the Rodeo Prison makes it necessary that, while the State makes the appropriate adjustments to deal with the structural problems, the persons confined in such premises who are being affected by such flaws, be protected by provisional measures if their condition is of extreme seriousness and urgency. 15. That in view of the principle of subsidiarity informed by the Inter-American System of human rights, an order for the adoption of provisional measures under Article 63(2) of the American Convention is justified in situations of extreme seriousness and urgency and before the possibility of causing irreparable damage to persons, with regard to whom the existing ordinary guarantees of the State turn out to 5 Cf. Case of the "Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 159; Matter of the Mendoza Prisons, supra note 4; considering clause ten; Matter of Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Court of September 21, 2005, considering clause six ; Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in “Complexo do Tatuapé” of FEBEM. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Court of November 30, 2005, Considering clause seven. 6 Cf. Matter of Mendoza Prisons Provisional Measures Regarding Argentina. Order of the President of the Court of August 22, 2007, Considering clause six. 7 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C Nº. 150.