8 Penitentiary in the conditions in which she had been held prior to her transfer." The basis of the Commission's request is summarized below: a. The Penitentiary in question has three blocks designated "A", "B" and "C". Block "A" houses inmates categorized as least dangerous, that is, those who claim to be innocent and to have no connection with subversive or terrorist groups, and have openly denounced such groups, as is the case of Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo. Blocks "B" and "C" house inmates categorized as highly and moderately dangerous and those who have declared themselves in favor of the so-called "peace accord". Block "C" also houses prisoners awaiting classification and those who express their desire to sever connections with their subversive or terrorist groups, as well as inmates who do not wish to participate in other daily prison activities. b. Peru ordered Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo to be transferred to that prison's maximum danger Block and held in continuous solitary confinement, which constitutes an arbitrary and unlawful deterioration of her detention conditions, thereby violating, among other instruments, the American Convention and the (United Nations) Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. c. When there is an international complaint against a State for violations of rights guaranteed by the American Convention, that State has the obligation, in good faith, to refrain from needlessly adopting measures that may adversely affect the situation of the plaintiff. d. Peru promulgated Decree-Law Nº 25.475 (crime of terrorism) and Supreme Decision Nº 114-92-JUS as part of a counter-insurgency strategy, both of which establish procedures that are incompatible with the international obligations contracted by the State. e. The State's argument that "any deviation" from the agreement of the Penal Technical Council regarding Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo's conditions of imprisonment would "put the security system and the principle of authority at risk" is also unfounded, since Ms. Loayza was confined in Block "A" and "has never, and will never, constitute a risk to the so-called Security system." f. There is a dual sense of urgency about this case: firstly, Peru, through the measure adopted, has caused irreparable harm to a person who has been arbitrarily tried and sentenced, in violation of the Convention; secondly, the physical and mental suffering inflicted on Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo as a consequence of her confinement in a tiny cell for twenty-three and a half hours a day, and her incommunicado detention for one year, as well as the severe restrictions on visits, also constitute cruel and inhuman treatment. 25. On June 12, 1996, the President adopted, on the basis of the Commission's petition and Articles 63(2) of the Convention and 24(4) of the Rules of Procedure then in force, urgent measures on behalf of Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, and requested that Peru adopt forthwith such measures as were necessary to effectively ensure her physical, psychological and moral integrity. He further requested the State to issue a report on the measures taken so that they could be brought to the attention of the Court at its next session, saying that he would submit that Order for the Court's consideration and pertinent effects. 26. On June 24, 1996, Peru submitted the report requested by the President in his Order