56 186. The above conclusion is true in ordinary and extraordinary circumstances. As the Court has pointed out, “the declaration of a state of emergency -whatever its breadth or denomination in internal law- cannot entail the suppression or ineffectiveness of the judicial guarantees that the Convention requires the States Parties to establish for the protection of the rights not subject to derogation or suspension by the state of emergency.”102 Therefore, “any provision adopted by virtue of a state of emergency which results in the suspension of those guarantees is a violation of the Convention.”103 187. Of the essential judicial guarantees not subject to derogation or suspension, habeas corpus is the proper remedy in “ensuring that a person’s life and physical integrity are respected, in preventing his disappearance or the keeping of his whereabouts secret and in protecting him against torture or other cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishment or treatment.”104 188. The Court therefore finds that the State’s enforcement of its domestic laws denied the victims the possibility of recourse to judicial guarantees; with that the State violated articles 25 and 7(6) of the Convention. XIII VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 (RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY) 189. Article 5 of the Convention provides as follows: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 3. Punishment shall not be extended to any person other than the criminal. [...] 6. Punishments consisting of deprivation of liberty shall have as an essential aim the reform and social re-adaptation of the prisoners. 190. Arguments of the Commission: a) the system of keeping prisoners in isolation, confined to their cell for the first year of incarceration, and of prohibiting visits from consular officials, is a violation of articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, as it constitutes cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment that violates their right to personal integrity; 102. Judicial guarantees in states of emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and Human Rights), supra note 86, para. 25. 8 American Convention on 103. Judicial guarantees in states of emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and Human Rights), supra note 86, para. 26. 8 American Convention on 104. Habeas corpus in emergency situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 86, para. 35, Neira Alegría et al. Case, Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 82.