57 b) as the Convention’s aim is proper respect for human dignity, it favors sentences whose aim is rehabilitation rather than punishment. Life imprisonment without any rehabilitative program will invariably cause irreversible decline. Execution of the sentence “must take into account each prisoner’s individual circumstances”; in other words, the prisoner’s state of mind must be analyzed and he should receive periodic treatment and checkups; c) the penalties established in the counter-insurgency laws are in many cases disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense. Sentences should be proportionate and humane; d) “uninterrupted confinement to cell [for one year] is not listed among the sentences catalogued in Peru’s Penal Code [… since] it is not a penalty [but rather] a method of executing a punishment consisting of deprivation of freedom.” This type of incarceration can only be ordered by a judicial authority, and strictly for reasons of security or to maintain order or discipline within the jail or penitentiary, and only for as long as is strictly necessary to get the emergency situation under control; or as a disciplinary measure imposed following proceedings in which the principles of due process were observed. In any case, the confinement to cell ordered under these circumstances must be approved and supervised by a physician during its execution; and e) under Article 27(1) of the Convention, a State may not invoke a state of emergency to avoid its “obligations under international law.” 191. Arguments of the State: a) this point was not addressed in its response to the application; b) it pointed out that the testimony of witness Héctor Salazar Ardiles, who testified before the Court as to the condition of the alleged victims at the Yanamayo Prison, was hearsay (supra 85.c); and c) it then asserted that the alleged victims had not been kept in isolation cells, as the facilities at the prison were such that it would be impossible to keep an inmate in isolation. With that same communication, the State submitted an accounting of the visits the alleged victims had received in 1998. 192. In the instant case, Chilean citizen Jaime Francisco Castillo Petruzzi was held incommunicado, in the hands of government authorities, for 36 days before being brought before a court. Mrs. Pincheira Sáez, Mr. Astorga Valdez and Mr. Mellado Saavedra were held incommunicado for 37 days. This, combined with the Commission’s allegations -which the State did not challenge– to the effect that when their statements were to be taken in the preliminary proceedings, the persons in question appeared in court either blindfolded or hooded, and either in restraints or handcuffs, is in itself a violation of Article 5(2) of the Convention. 193. Also, on January 7, 1994, the court of first instance convicted Mr. Castillo Petruzzi, Mr. Mellado Saavedra and Mrs. Pincheira Sáez of treason and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The highest appellate court upheld their convictions on