28. The State specified that “at present [the Yanamayo prison] houses inmates who have committed any crime, provided that it falls under the Rules of the Closed Ordinary Regimen [and,] where health problems arise, [they are relocated].” It noted that “those detained for terrorism were transferred […] to other national prisons to avoid [problems] with their health and physical integrity,” and indicated that, to date, “the prison has been repopulated with ordinary inmates from the city of Puno, Juliaca and nearby communities.” Nevertheless, it reported that “frequent riots [caused the] collapse of basic services [, currently] undergoing maintenance.” The State also reported that “there are plans for the construction of a new elevated tank, which will provide water to the population of 333 inmates currently detained.” 29. Furthermore, the State pointed out that Mrs. Berenson “was transferred [in] 1998 from EP Yanamayo to EP Socabaya Arequipa after experiencing health problems and in response to the recommendations made by the Inter-American Court.” Subsequently, “she was transferred to EP-Huacariz-Cajamarca and later to EP Chorrillos- Lima, from which she was released on parole.” 30. Regarding this point, the representative stated that he “appreciates the Commission’s continued insistence regarding the detention conditions of the Yanamayo prison [and h]opes that the Commission will continue its investigation on the living conditions at the Challapalca prison.” 31. The Commission stated that “it takes note of the information provided by the State and appreciates that maintenance activities are being carried out on basic services and that corrective measures are being taken to eliminate water shortages at the [Yanamayo] prison.” Nevertheless, it considered that “the information is limited and does not allow for a comprehensive analysis regarding the adaptation of the conditions of detention [in this] prison […] to international standards.” ii) Considerations of the Court 32. The Court recalls that the Judgment on the merits in this case declared the Peruvian State's international responsibility for the conditions of detention imposed on the victim at the Yanamayo prison. Specifically, the victim was confined in the prison, located at 3800 meters above sea level, and was held for one year in solitary confinement, in a small cell with no ventilation, no natural light, without heating, with poor nutrition and poor sanitation. 26 33. In this regard, the Inter-American Court recalls that “the State holds a special position as guarantor of the rights of persons deprived of their liberty, since prison authorities exercise a strong control or command over the persons in their custody[, which] creates a unique interaction and relationship of subordination between the detainee and the State.”27 In this regard, “given this unique relationship and interaction of subordination between an inmate and the State, the latter must take on 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 26 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru, supra note 5, para. 106. 27 Cf. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 221; Case of Fermín Ramírez, Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 118, and Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia)v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 34. 8