transferred to a floor ‘infested by rats.’” It also indicated that “[d]uring the 17 days that she remained in the DINCOTE, on three occasions she was taken from her cell. On one of these occasions, they tried to take her out at 11 p.m. and when she refused, they threw a bucket of cold water on her and she was obliged to leave the cell to be taken to another one. On another occasion, she was taken from her cell at around 8.30 p.m. by a man she did not recognize, questioned about her presence in Ayacucho, and told that if she did not cooperate her sister would be in danger.” The Commission also indicated that “Ms. J. was subjected to prolonged incommunicado without any judicial control and subjected to [ill-treatment].” 370. The representative alleged that “[d]uring [her] detention […] J. was threatened that her sister, who had been detained and was released 17 days later, would be tortured. The only reason for her sister’s detention was to exercise psychological torture over [Ms. J.] so that “she would confess.’” In this regard, the representative indicated that the State had not denied this, and had failed to explain why J.’s sister was arrested. 371. The State argued that “Ms. J. had not stated that she had suffered acts of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as a result of her presence in the DINCOTE building before any domestic instance (police, prosecution, or judicial).” It also indicated that “[t]he DINCOTE had facilities equipped for the search and detention of presumed perpetrators of the crime of terrorism, as well as special isolation cells; also, women detainees were supervised by female personnel.” It asserted that “if she had suffered ill-treatment in the DINCOTE,” this would have been reflected in the medical report prepared on April 18, five days after her entry into the DINCOTE. D.2) Considerations of the Court 372. The Court recalls its considerations supra on the absolute prohibition of subjecting anyone to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the obligation to investigate such facts, and the obligation to act with due diligence to prevent, punish and eliminate violence against women (supra paras. 303, 304, 341 and 342). In addition, the Court has indicated that, pursuant to Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, any person deprived of liberty has the right to detention conditions compatible with his or her personal dignity. Since the State is responsible for detention facilities, it is in the special position of guarantor of the rights of anyone who is in its custody. 524 Thus, the State must ensure that the manner and method of deprivation of liberty does not exceed the inevitable level of suffering inherent in detention. 525 In this regard, the Court has considered that poor physical conditions and hygiene of places of detention, 526 as well as the absence of adequate light and ventilation, 527 may, in themselves, violate Article 5 of the American Convention, 524 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 60, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244, para. 135. 525 Cf. Case of the “Children’s Rehabilitation Institute" v. Paraguay, supra, para. 159, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 201. 526 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.” Meanwhile, 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.” In this regard, Rule 5 of the Bangkok Rules establish that “[t]he accommodation of women prisoners shall have facilities and materials required to meet women’s specific hygiene needs, including sanitary towels provided free of charge and a regular supply of water to be made available for the personal care of children and women, in particular women involved in cooking and those who are pregnant, breastfeeding or menstruating.” United Nations, General Assembly resolution 65/229, United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders, 16 March 2011, A/RES/65/229. See also, Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, supra, para. 135. 527 Regarding access to daylight and fresh air, Rule 11 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners establishes that: “[i]n 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 110