26 of the ACHR erodes the strength of the standards established in its dearly case law on the minimum conditions for the deprivation of liberty, and the State’s obligations in relation to the rights to life and to integrity of those who are detained. 5. For more than 30 years, the Court has been ruling on prison conditions in the Americas, making a literal, systematic and finalist interpretation of the right to personal integrity contained in Article 5 of the Convention. 27 On this normative basis, the Court has developed standards according to which States have the obligation to guarantee the rights of persons deprived of liberty, and to ensure that they have the minimum conditions of food, health and infrastructure for a decent existence while they are in their custody. 28 Also, on several occasions, the Court has convicted States Parties owing to the lack of appropriate and effective measures to guarantee these rights and has ordered them to implement adequate measures to comply with their international obligations. 29 6. More precisely, the Court has established that Articles 1(1) and 5 of the ACHR reveal the obligation to provide persons deprived of liberty with, among other elements, ventilation and natural light, a bed to rest on, basic nutrition, access to potable water, and regular medical check-ups and appropriate treatment. 30 It has also indicated that these conditions are mandatory given a prisoner’s situation of subjection in relation to the State. 31 Consequently, in cases in which these conditions are not met due to overcrowding, isolation or solitary confinement, this constitutes a violation of the right to personal integrity and, thus, grounds for the international responsibility of the State. 32 Evidently, it was not necessary to make any mention of the justiciability of the ESCER to achieve this level of protection. 7. However, in this case, the majority opted for a different reasoning to the one that the Court had used historically. The protection of the personal integrity of prisoners by Article 5 of the Convention was examined exclusively in relation to the acts of torture that the victims suffered in the context of an investigation. 33 Meanwhile, the obligation to provide them with adequate medical assessment, care and attention was examined solely in relation to the right to health derived from Article 26 of the Convention. 34 Article 5. Right to humane treatment. 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 3. Punishment shall not be extended to any person other than the criminal. 4. Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons, and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons. 5. Minors while subject to criminal proceedings shall be separated from adults and brought before specialized tribunals, as speedily as possible, so that they may be treated in accordance with their status as minors. 6. Punishments consisting of deprivation of liberty shall have as an essential aim the reform and social readaptation of the prisoners. 28 Cf. Case of the "Juvenile Re-education Institute" v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 170. 29 Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160; Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 241; Case of Chinchilla Sandoval et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 29, 2016. Series C No. 312. 30 Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paras. 150 to 157. Similarly, Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti. Merits and reparations. Judgment of November 23, 2011. Series C No. 236, paras. 85 and 86. 31 Cf. Matter of the Mendoza Prison with regard to Argentina. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2004, considering paragraph 10. 32 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006, para. 315. 33 Case of Valencia Campos v. Bolivia, paras. 170 ff. 34 Case of Valencia Campos v. Bolivia, paras. 241 ff. 27 3