B.1 The State’s obligation to provide medical care and treatment to persons deprived of liberty 166. The Court has repeatedly stated that the right to life is a fundamental human right in the American Convention, and therefore its protection is essential for the exercise of all other rights.235 Accordingly, States have the obligation to create the conditions required for their full enjoyment and exercise.236 167. Moreover, the right to personal integrity is of such importance that the American Convention protects it specifically upon establishing, inter alia, the prohibition on torture, cruel, and inhumane treatment, and the impossibility of suspending this right under any circumstances.237 168. The Court has indicated that from the general obligations to respect and guarantee the rights established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention are derived special obligations that are determined according to the particular needs for protection of the subject of law, either owing to his personal situation or to the specific situation in which he finds himself.238 In that regard, the State has a special role as guarantor in respect of persons deprived of their liberty, given that the prison authorities exert control over the persons held in custody.239 This results from the special interaction of subjection between the person deprived of liberty and the State, characterized by the particular intensity with which the State can regulate their rights and obligations and by the circumstances characteristic of confinement, in which the person deprived of liberty is prevented from satisfying, on his own account, a series of essential basic needs required to lead a dignified life, 240 in the terms that are possible in those circumstances. 169. Consequently, pursuant to Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, every person deprived of liberty has right to live in conditions of detention that are compatible with their personal dignity. This implies that the State has a duty to safeguard the health and wellbeing of those deprived of liberty and to ensure that the manner and method of deprivation of liberty does not exceed the inevitable level of suffering inherent in detention. 241 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144, 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. 39. 235 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 144, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 39. 236 Articles 5 and 27 of the American Convention. See also, Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 157, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 40. 237 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 111; and Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, para. 128. 238 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 60, and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, supra, para. 117. 239 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay, supra, para. 152, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013 Series C No. 260, para. 188. See IACHR, Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, OAS/ Ser. L/V/II Doc. 64, December 31, 2011, paras. 49 and ss. 240 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay, supra, para. 159, and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, supra, para. 117. Basic Principles 1, 5 and 9 for the Treatment of Prisoners approved by the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 45/111, of December 14, 1990, state that all inmates shall be treated with 241 51