55 of respect for their physical, mental and moral integrity, and that the victims have additionally been subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in violation of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1(1). 154) The Commission stated that, during their pre-trial detention, the victims suffered from serious overcrowding, which forced them to sleep sitting or standing up. Moreover, the cells lacked adequate hygiene, natural light and sufficient ventilation, aggravated by the fact that the victims were confined in these conditions for at least twenty-three hours a day. 155) With respect to their post-conviction detention, the Commission stated that the victims have been kept in solitary confinement and that opportunities to leave to get fresh air or exercise are rare. In these circumstances, the victims have no educational or recreational facilities. Access to medical and dental services for some of the victims has been inadequate since visits by medical and dental personnel are rare and requests for attention have often not been met. 156) The Inter-American Commission stated that the victims have suffered these conditions for extensive periods of time, and therefore the State has failed to ensure respect for the dignity inherent to all human beings in all circumstances, as well as their right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 157) The Commission also alleged that the State of Trinidad and Tobago violated Article 5(4) with respect to Francis Mansingh due to the fact that before his trial, he was held in a cell with prisoners who had already been convicted of murder and were awaiting the resolution of their appeals. 158) Finally, the Commission alleged that the State did not make any attempt to reform or socially readapt Haniff Hilaire and Krishendath Seepersad, which constitutes a violation of Article 5(6) of the Convention. Specifically, they were not taught to read or write, nor were they given any training on violence prevention and control. The Commission stated that for persons sentenced to death, the possibility of the death sentence being revoked or commuted continues until all appeals have been exhausted. Therefore, it stated that during this transitional period, there should be no discrimination in providing opportunities for reform or social readaptation based solely on the fact that these prisoners were sentenced to death. Contentions of the Representatives of the Alleged Victims 159) The representatives agreed with the Commission’s arguments and stated that the cells receive little or no natural light, the sanitation facilities are primitive and degrading, the accused in pre-trial detention are kept in overcrowded, tiny cells, there is no opportunity for those awaiting the death penalty to work, time for exercise is very limited, and medical facilities are virtually nonexistent. Alfred Frederick (Case No. 12,082), Natasha De Leon (Case No. 12,093), Vijay Mungroo (Case No. 12,111), Phillip Chotalal (Case No. 12,112), Naresh Boodram and Joey Ramiah (Case No. 12,129), Nigel Mark (Case No. 12,137), Wilberforce Bernard (Case No. 12,140), Steve Mungroo (Case No. 12,141), Krishendath Seepersad (Case No. 12,149), Narine Sooklal (Case No. 12,152), Amir Mowlah (Case No. 12,153), Mervyn Parris (Case No. 12,156), and Francis Mansingh (Case No. 12,157).