40. Additionally, 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 during states of emergency.31 41. The rights to life and personal integrity require not only that the State respect them (negative obligation), but also that the State take all appropriate measures to ensure them (positive obligation), in fulfilling its general obligation established in Article 1(1) of the Convention. 32 42. The Court has established that from the general obligation to respect and guarantee rights established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, determinable special rights are derived as a function of the particular necessity for protection of the holder of the right, given either his or her personal condition or his or her specific situation.33 This Court has held that, under Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, every person deprived of his or her liberty has the right to live in detention conditions compatible with his or her personal dignity. Consequently, since the State is the institution responsible for detention establishments, it is the guarantor of the rights of those under its custody.34 This implies the State’s duty to guarantee the health and welfare of inmates by providing them, among other things, with required medical care, and it must also ensure that the manner and method of any deprivation of liberty do not exceed the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention.35 The States cannot invoke economic hardships to justify imprisonment conditions that do not comply with minimum international standards and respect the inherent dignity of the human being.36 43. In turn, the rights to life and personal integrity are directly and closely linked with human health care. In this sense, Article 10 of the Additional 31 Articles 5 and 27 of the American Convention. See, also, Case of “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” V. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 157. 32 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) V. Guatemala, supra note 29, para. 139; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Fields”) V. México, supra note 21, para. 245, and Case of Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community. V. Paraguay, supra note 21, para. 187. 33 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 111; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Fields”) V. México, supra note 21, para. 243, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panamá, supra note 3, para. 98. 34 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 60; Case of Yvon Neptune V. Haití. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 6 de mayo de 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 130, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panamá, supra note 3, para. 198. 35 Cf. Case of “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” V. Paraguay, supra note 32, para. 159; Case of Yvon Neptune V. Haití, supra note 35, para. 130, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panamá, supra note 3, para. 198. 36 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) V. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, paras. 85 and 87; Case of Boyce et al. V. Barbados. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 169, para. 88, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panamá, supra note 3, para. 198. 18