particular, information was provided on reports of inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted on inmates in the provincial prisons, the investigation of which suffered long delays and gave rise to fears that it was neither independent nor exhaustive. 17 The representatives argued that, even though the judicial authorities had declared several applications for habeas corpus admissible, prolonged detention and acts of torture within the pavilions continued.18 The report of the visit made to the prisons by the InterAmerican Commission’s Rapporteur for the Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty at the end of April 2009, stated that prison staff inspection teams comprised only a few officials, so that, given their numerical disadvantage, they used very violent procedures to carry out the inspections.19 36. Although the facts alleged on this occasion refer to acts committed by several prison agents against two inmates of the San Felipe Unit, the reported situation of acts that could be classified as inhuman or degrading treatment, and even forms of torture, could indicate the possible existence within the prisons of certain practices incompatible with the State’s obligations under the Convention. In any case, this should be an obvious line of investigation into the facts by the domestic authorities during the administrative and criminal proceedings. Although the State may be adopting measures to investigate and prosecute the alleged perpetrators of the acts, in both the administrative and the criminal jurisdictions, together with measures to prevent similar acts (supra twenty-second considering paragraph), it did not report whether all its investigative mechanisms were trying to determine specifically whether similar practices or acts exist within the prisons, because it alleged that such practices do not exist. 37. With regard to the individual or specific protection requested by the Commission, according to the information provided by the Commission and by the State, the latter appears to have adopted a series of measures in order to protect the life and physical integrity of William Vargas García, Walter Fabián Correa, Andrés Yacante and Matías Marcelo Tello Sanchez (supra nineteenth considering paragraph). Nevertheless, the Commission has advised that these individuals have been attacked in the places of detention to which they were transferred and that the witnesses of the acts are not receiving adequate protection, and the State has not provided any response to this. 38. In relation to the measures adopted with regard to the “alleged perpetrators of the acts of torture and ill-treatment against the inmates of the San Felipe Prison Complex,” together with other measures, the State underscored: i) The opening of 10 administrative procedures (investigation and pre-trial proceedings for possible administrative offenses) by the General Security Inspectorate, during which it was decided to open a summary administrative proceeding and apply preventive suspension or removal in the case of seven prison agents who were involved; as well as charges against and the dismissal of 17 Cf. Annual Report of Amnesty International published on May 25, 2005, on significant events between January and December 2004, folio 1114 of the case file. 18 Cf. Matter of the Mendoza Prisons, supra note 3, having seen paragraph 51(d). 19 Cf. Special report of November 16, 2008, on the situation of the Provisional Prison and the “Dr. Juan Bautista Vitale Nocera” Penal Farm in the Gustavo André district, Lavalle department, Mendoza, Argentina, and observations on the State’s most recent reports on implementation of the provisional measures ordered by the Court on November 22, 2004, paragraph 17, folio 6912 of the case file. 16