the police official that had threatened Mr. Andino with death. Given that Mr. Andino is currently deprived of his liberty, the Commission indicated that “the measures of protection should be accommodated to the new situation in such a way that they continue to be effective for the protection of his life and personal integrity.” It requested that the State submit more detailed information on the measures of protection that will be implemented and, in particular, that it explain the isolation cell and how the cell and the beneficiary’s location far from his place of residence contribute to his protection. 13. The Tribunal notes that ever since these provisional measures were ordered, the State has made efforts to implement some measures of protection in favor of Mr. Dencen Andino Alvarado. However, these measures have not always been implemented effectively. The Court highlights that according to information submitted by the representatives, the year following the adoption of these measures, Mr. Andino continued to receive threats and intimidation due to his status as a witness to the events that occurred to Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas Fernández. At the same time, this information demonstrates that, on occasion, the police officers charged with guarding Mr. Andino have been seen conversing with another police officer that had apparently threatened him with death. 14. Additionally, the Court notes that Mr. Andino is currently deprived of his liberty due to the sentence imposed upon him due to acts that, according to the representatives and the State, are not related to his status as a witness. However, the Court has been informed that the beneficiary has been threatened inside of the Prison where he is being held, both by his cellmates and by police personnel assigned to that prison, and that he is afraid of denouncing those threats. In that regard, on one hand, it is not clear to the Tribunal how keeping Mr. Andino in an isolated cell is more appropriate for his protection as a witness, or how this form of detention and its characteristics comply with the purpose of the provisional measures ordered by the Court. In particular, the Tribunal highlights that, apparently, some of the threats received come from his cellmates. Additionally, in its last report, the State did not inform the Court of other measures effectively implemented, in addition to Mr. Andino’s isolated detention, in order to protect his life and integrity. The Court also highlights that the State had previously reported that the possibility of transferring him to another detention center would be evaluated; however, the representatives have indicated that this issue has not yet been resolved by State authorities. 15. From the foregoing, the Court considers that Mr. Dencen Andino Alvarado’s situation, prima facie, continues to be extremely grave and urgent, which makes it necessary that the provisional measures ordered in his favor be maintained in order to prevent irreparable harm to him. The Tribunal considers it appropriate to affirm that, “as it is responsible for its detention centers, the State is in a special position as guarantor of the rights of every person in its custody.”8 Additionally, the Court has maintained that, independent of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is especially obligated to guarantee the rights of persons who are deprived of 8 Case of Neira-Alegría et al. V. Peru. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 60; Case of Vélez Loor V. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010 Series C No. 218, para. 198; and Case of Vera-Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, para. 42. 7