36 166. The Commission alleged that the two victims were incommunicado for three days, even though Ecuadorean laws limit the duration of incommunicado to 24 hours. The representatives stated that the duration of the period of incommunicado was five days in the case of Mr. Chaparro and four days in that of Mr. Lapo, and added that the conditions in which they were detained in the Guayaquil Model Detention Center and in the “El Litoral Prison” were unsafe. 167. The State indicated during the public hearing in this case (supra para. 8) that: “regarding Article 5 of the Convention […] its acquiescence is total”; “the State does not contest any fact […] in relation to Article 5,” and “the five-day incommunicado period to which they were subjected […] constitutes cruel [and] inhuman treatment.” 168. During this public hearing, Mr. Lapo indicated: In the Model Detention Center, I slept on the floor during the first week […], we were allowed to bathe once a day with a gallon of water, use the toilet once - not at the time we wanted to, but at the time they indicated. [In the “El Litoral Prison”] we were in a cell of three by four [meters], approximately 20 persons […] I had to defend myself with my fists to avoid being assaulted […], many companions had to defend me because, when they could not assault me, they took out their knives or their machetes to try and attack me […]. The organic waste was left in the yard […]. Those who were being held for trial and who went to eat in the prison kitchen were beaten by the prison guards when they formed a line to collect the food.”103 169. In response to a question by the Commission on the conditions in the El Litoral Prison, Mr. Chaparro stated: Anything that I can tell you about them may seem exaggerated; […] the conditions in which these people live are infrahuman. It is very painful to have to recall this.104 170. According to Article 5 of the Convention, all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with regard for their inherent dignity.105 The State, as the entity responsible for detention centers, must guarantee prison inmates the existence of conditions that respect their fundamental rights and a decent life.106 171. Also, the Court has established that “prolonged isolation and being held incommunicado constitute, in themselves, forms of cruel and inhuman treatment harmful to the mental and moral integrity of the person and to the right of respect for the inherent dignity of the human being.”107 A person may only be held incommunicado exceptionally, taking into account its grave effects, because “isolation from the outside world causes any person to suffer moral and psychological trauma, making him particularly vulnerable and increasing the risk of aggression and arbitrariness in prisons.”108 dignity of the human person. 103 Cf. testimony of Freddy Hernán Lapo Íñiguez at the public hearing held before the Inter-American Court on May 17, 2007. 104 Cf. testimony of Mr. Chaparro at the public hearing, supra note 95. 105 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 3, para. 150; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 49, para. 151; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 42, para. 126. 106 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 3, para. 150; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 152; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 42, para. 126. 107 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 42, para. 87; Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 150, and Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 83 108 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 42, para. 87; Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 107, para. 150; and Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 107, para. 84.