VII MERITS RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE THE RIGHTS 128. In this chapter, the Court will examine the arguments on violation of the right to personal integrity in relation to the obligations to respect and guarantee the rights. A) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 129. The arguments of the Commission under Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention refer to the alleged progressive deterioration in the health of Raúl José Díaz Peña as a result of the alleged detention conditions to which he had been subjected, added to the alleged lack of adequate and opportune medical care for “the loss of hearing in one ear and recurring perianal abscesses.” Hence, when establishing the State’s international responsibility, it considered the existence of the following detention conditions of Raúl José Díaz Peña in the DISIP: (a) the lack of natural light and ventilation; (b) the fact of being locked up at night from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., without access to the sanitary installations, and (c) time in the open air being limited to two hours once every 15 days. 130. In addition, the Commission argued that “the State was not diligent in permitting a rigorous and opportune diagnosis of the health situation of the [presumed] victim by continuous access to medical specialists and the performance of the specialized tests that he required.” In addition, according to the Commission, “once it was aware of the importance of an operation and of the limited prospect of recovery under the detention conditions in which [Mr. Díaz Peña] was kept, the State [had] failed to adopt any measure to permit the operation to be carried out immediately and to facilitate conditions for his rehabilitation.” 131. The representative agreed with the arguments of the Commission and indicated that when Mr. Díaz Peña entered the DISIP cells, the detention conditions were inhuman and deplorable, for the following reasons: the cell had no illumination and any light it received came from the corridor; he slept on a mattress on the floor; it was strictly forbidden to have electric appliances; there was no kind of air from outside; it was very hot and humid; it was very dusty; he was not allowed to go out into the sunlight; there was no place to do exercises; there was a single bathroom for 10 cells; visiting rights were twice a week for one hour, and the DISIP provided the food, which was very greasy. Subsequently, after October 2005, the Venezuelan authorities gradually allowed the use of ventilators and access to sunlight one hour each week. Nevertheless, in mid-2006, the Director of Investigations, responsible for the area of the Pre-Trial Detention Center, where Raúl Díaz was imprisoned, had ordered that “the cells remain locked with padlocks from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.,” which made it impossible for the prisoners to go to the sanitary installations during these hours, obliging them “to attend to their necessities in plastic bags, newspapers or bottles, without being able to wash their hands, and having to keep their feces and urine in that small cell throughout the night,” a situation that would continue until the date on which Mr. Díaz Peña left the DISIP. In addition, she argued that the detention conditions to which Mr. Díaz Peña was subjected from February 25, 2004, to October 12, 2005, had resulted in “changes in his biological clock,” and that the food received from the DISIP had wreaked havoc with his health, causing him “continuous diarrhea, with the loss of 12 kilos in six months.” 132. The representative indicated that, in 2005, Raúl Díaz had been diagnosed with a perianal abscess that required appropriate treatment, which he had not received. In addition, since the cells were locked for the night at 10 p.m., “having to attend to his necessities in a bag, without being able to wash” had exacerbated the infection and he had developed a fistula that would only be cured by an operation, “so that, at this time, he had a cyst that required surgery.” In addition, she 47