64 group. In consequence, the State must adopt certain positive, specific, and oriented measures in order not only to guarantee the enjoyment and exercise of those rights the restriction of which is not a collateral effect of the situation of imprisonment, but also to ensure that such deprivation of liberty does not entail a higher risk to the infringement of the rights, the integrity, and personal and family welfare of migrants. 210. The Court considers that, given that Mr. Vélez Loor was deprived of his liberty at La Palma Public Prison and later at the La Joyita Penitentiary Center, prison centers that depend on the national prison system in which he was held together with people awaiting criminal trial and/or are serving time for the commission of a crime, the State violated Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of Mr. Vélez Loor. b) Prison conditions at La Palma Public Prison and La Joyita Penitentiary Center (“La Joyita”) 211. Considering the partial acknowledgment of responsibility by the State, (supra Chapter VI), there is still controversy over the issues related to the provision of water at La Joyita and with the medical care provided to Mr. Vélez Loor in said place, which will be analyzed below. 1) Provision of water at La Joyita 212. Regarding La Joyita Penitentiary Center, the Commission emphasized, among other things, “the shortcomings in access to basic services, such as a shortage of showers, drinking water, and an adequate system for disposing of the prisoners’ waste.” The representatives indicated that Mr. Vélez Loor was imprisoned “without sufficient water for human consumption, and the little water he had was of poor quality,” and the facility was without water for two weeks. 213. The State expressed that “[i]t is not true that prisoners had been without water for more than two weeks [at La Joyita],” given that during such period of time, urgent measures were adopted to guarantee the supply through “the use of tank trucks” and therefore, the immediate causes of the problems were identified and the necessary repairs were made to normalize the supply. In this respect, the State contested “the existence of malicious acts against those deprived of liberty,” and emphasized that “[i]t is tendentious to claim that the shortage of water is used as a form of punishment for the population of those deprived of liberty.” 214. From the evidence, it appears that, during an inspection conducted by personnel of the Supervision Program of Inmates’ Rights of the Ombudsman’s Office of June 23, 2003, a group of inmates of La Joyita Penitentiary Center complained about the lack of drinking water for more than fifteen days at the premises of said center, which had caused dehydration, diarrhea, and conjunctivitis in the inmates of some cellblocks, as well as the overflowing of waste water. On July 1, 2003, the Ombudsman admitted the complaint, and personnel of the Ombudsman's Office conducted a new inspection, verifying that “there was still no water at the place due to an electrical problem that affected the supply of water.”240 The Ombudsman’s Office had also studied and issued a decision on the deficiencies and lack of the Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, Chapter VI Special Studies, April 16, 2001, OEA/Ser./L/V/II.111, doc. 20 rev., para. 110. 240 Press release issued by the Ombudsman's Office by means of its website http://defensoriadelpueblo.gob.pa/mainprensa.php?folio=1&catid=&start=1900 on July 1, 2003 (case file of the evidence, volume III, annex 30 of the application, folio 1536). See also, Newspaper article of “La Prensa,” entitled “Sanitation crisis at La Joya and La Joyita" of July 2, 2003 (case file of the evidence, volume V, annex 29 of the autonomous brief of pleadings, motions and evidence, folio 2197).