66 para. 88(74)(i)). The medical care provided to the alleged victim was deficient (supra para. 88(74)(v)). Lori Berenson suffered circulatory problems and had Reynaud’s syndrome (supra para. 88(74)(v)). She also had problems with her vision, because her cell was lit with artificial light. 107. The United Nations Committee against Torture has stated that the detention conditions in the Yanamayo Prison, which it knew because of its investigations, implied cruel and inhuman treatment and punishment. The Committee considered that the State should close this establishment.223 108. The detention conditions imposed on the alleged victim in the Yanamayo Prison, as a result of the application of Article 20 of Decree Law No. 25,475 and Article 3 of Decree Law No. 25,744 by the military courts, constituted cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, which violated Article 5 of the American Convention. Some of these conditions varied after a certain time, such as the continuous solitary confinement. However, this did not change the Court’s previous conclusion. 109. Consequently, the Court concludes that the State violated Article 5(1), 5(2) and 5(6) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof to the detriment of Lori Berenson. IX ARTICLE 9 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) THEREOF (FREEDOM FROM EX POST FACTO LAWS) Arguments of the Commission 110. Regarding Article 9 of the Convention, the Commission argued that: a) The State violated the right embodied in Article 9 of the Convention to the detriment of the alleged victim, “by convicting her of the crime of collaboration with terrorism established in Article 4(a) and (b) of Decree Law No. 25,475”; b) The civil trial against the alleged victim “was initiated based on a charge for the crime of terrorism, and with an order to open the pre-trial proceedings that required a new preliminary statement from the [alleged victim] and the processing of a new trial pursuant to Decree Law No. 25,475”; c) The definition of terrorism established in Article 2 of Decree Law No. 25,475, conceived ‘in an abstract and ambiguous manner,” and the definition of the category of collaboration with terrorism, referred to in Article 4 of this Decree Law, “are incompatible per se with the principle of legality embodied in Article 9 of the American Convention”; d) Acts of collaboration can never be considered autonomous categories of crime: they are related to the crime of terrorism, which “is extremely general”; 223 Cf. UN Committee against Torture. Investigation in relation to Article 20: Peru. 16/05/2001. A/56/44, paras. 144-193. (Inquiry under Article 20), para. 183 and 184.