of the rights of all those who are in its custody.240 This entails the State’s obligation to safeguard the health and welfare of prisoners, providing them, among other elements, with the required medical assistance, and ensuring that the manner and method of deprivation of liberty do not exceed the inevitable level of suffering inherent in detention.241 In this regard, the Court has considered that bad physical and hygienic conditions in places of detention,242 such as the lack of adequate light and ventilation,243 can, in themselves, violate Article 5 of the American Convention, depending on their intensity, duration and the personal characteristics of those that endure them, because they can cause suffering of an intensity that exceeds the inevitable level of suffering resulting from the detention, and because they result in feelings of humiliation and inferiority.244 Thus, the State cannot invoke financial difficulties to justify detention conditions that do not comply with the minimum international standards in this area and that fail to respect the dignity of the human being.245 136. Although it has been confirmed in this case that, approximately one year and eight months after Mr. Díaz Peña entered the Pre-Trial Detention Center a window was opened in a specific area of it, the use of standing ventilators was gradually allowed, a system of artificial lights, air extractors and air conditioning were progressively installed, and, in a limited manner, access to the open air (supra para. 97), the precautionary measures adopted were insufficient to comply with the State’s obligation to carry out a complete overhaul of the facilities in order to ensure access to natural light and fresh air, as well as regular and constant time out in the open air, as part of the inherent conditions of detention. 137. In addition, the Court has indicated that the general obligations to respect and guarantee the rights established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention gives rise to special obligations that are determined on the basis of the particular needs for protection of the subject of law, owing either to his personal situation or to the specific situation in which he finds himself.246 Thus, the State has the obligation to provide detainees with regular medical checkups and attention and adequate treatment when this is required.247 Principle 24 of the Body of Principles for the Protection 240 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 60, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, para. 198. 241 Cf. Case of the “Children’s Rehabilitation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 159, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, para. 198. 242 In this regard, Rule 10 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners establishes that: “[a]ll accommodation provided for the use of prisoners and in particular all sleeping accommodation shall meet all requirements of health, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and particularly to cubic content of air, minimum floor space, lighting, heating and ventilation.” While Rule 12 stipulates that “[t]he sanitary installations shall be adequate to enable every prisoner to comply with the needs of nature when necessary and in a clean and decent manner.” 243 Regarding access to natural light and fresh air, Rule 11 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners establishes that “ In all places where prisoners are required to live or work: (a) The windows shall be large enough to enable the prisoners to read or work by natural light, and shall be so constructed that they can allow the entrance of fresh air whether or not there is artificial ventilation; (b) Artificial light shall be provided sufficient for the prisoners to read or work without injury to eyesight. With regard to access to fresh air and to physical and recreational training, Rule 21 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners stipulates that “(1) Every prisoner who is not employed in outdoor work shall have at least one hour of suitable exercise in the open air daily if the weather permits. (2) Young prisoners, and others of suitable age and physique, shall receive physical and recreational training during the period of exercise. To this end space, installations and equipment should be provided.” 244 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 97. 245 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) v. Venezuela, para. 85, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, para. 198. 246 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 111, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, para. 42. 247 Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 156, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, para. 220. 49