23 the proceedings, the representatives may argue violations of the Convention other than those alleged by the Commission, as long as such legal arguments are based upon the facts set out in the application.80 Moreover, this Tribunal highlights the fact that the State was given due opportunity to answer all legal arguments put forward by the representatives at all stages of the proceedings. 84. The State argued that it had reserved the right to use hanging as a method of execution in its reservation to the American Convention, and, alternatively, that issues related to hanging are no longer relevant and are moot, as none of the alleged victims will be hanged.81 Furthermore, the State argued that the medical evidence submitted by the representatives with regard to the judicial hangings “should be given little weight” by the Court, as it is “primarily anecdotal and by its own admission is highly subjective in nature. Further, even if taken at face value, this medical evidence does not support the view that hanging is a cruel and inhuman form of execution.” 85. The Court has already declared that the mandatory imposition of the sentence of death violated the alleged victims’ right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life (supra, para. 62). This conclusion is not affected by the particular method of execution by which the death penalty may be carried out. Thus, the Court does not find it necessary to address whether the particular method of execution by hanging would also be in violation of the American Convention. B. Conditions of Detention 86. The Commission alleged that the prison conditions in which the State has detained the alleged victims “must simply be characterized as inhuman”, and thus constitute a violation of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention. The representatives similarly argued that “the conditions in which the alleged victims have been and continue to be detained, in particular in relation to the lack of privacy, being kept in cages, the lack of contact with the outside world, use of the slop buckets, and the lack of natural light and exercise, constitute inhuman and degrading treatment and fail to respect the human dignity of the person and so are contrary to Article 5 of the [American Convention]”. 87. The State affirmed that “its prison system fully respects the rights of those imprisoned to live in conditions of detention compatible with their personal dignity.” Furthermore, it considered that even if conditions at Glendairy and Harrison’s Point were imperfect, they “did not fall below or violate international legal standards, within or outside the hemisphere”. Finally, Barbados stated that it “upholds the standards of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners to the maximum extent permitted by its level of economic development”. 88. The Court has previously examined in other cases the obligation that States Parties to the Convention have, as guarantors of the rights of people under their custody, to provide adequate prison conditions in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention and as 80 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155; Case of Escué Zapata, supra note 51, para. 92, and Case of Bueno Alves V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 121. 81 The State’s arguments regarding the effects of its reservation to the Convention, as well as the alleged mootness of the issue of hanging, have been addressed by the Court in chapter III of this Judgment (supra, para. 17). The Court hereby reiterates that the State’s reservation was not specifically intended to exclude the issue of execution by hanging from the Court’s jurisdiction, and that the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention in this context would have occurred, not only at the moment of execution, but also at the moment of the reading of the warrants of execution.