25 prisoners held in Glendairy had grown to 994, or more than three times its maximum capacity, of which 942 were male and 52 were female.90 The staff consisted of a total of 282 employees.91 92. Prisoners sentenced to death at Glendairy Prison were held in the maximum risk area. The cells in this area measured ten feet five inches in length, five feet in width and ten feet two inches in height. Cellblocks were lit by a light bulb. The outer cells, where Mr. Atkins was held, had windows. Messrs. Joseph, Boyce and Huggins were housed in inner cells that had no windows. In these inner cells, ventilation was provided through the doors of the cells, which opened onto a corridor.92 The alleged victims had to use what are known as “slop buckets” to urinate and defecate in, which where emptied twice a day, once in the morning and again in the evening, and at other times upon special request.93 The alleged victims would stay in their cells at least 23 hours a day.94 93. The evidence submitted in this case demonstrates that by 2005 the prisoner population at Glendairy had exceeded three times its capacity. In this regard, the Court observes that overcrowded conditions at a detention center may cause detrimental effects on the whole prison population, including prisoners who, as in the case at hand, are held in single cells. Such conditions can result in a reduction of out-of-cell activities, overburdened health care services, hygienic problems and reduced accessibility to washroom and toilet facilities.95 As a result of this overcrowding, Mr. Joseph on some occasions received only 15 minutes per day of exercise, and Mr. Huggins received no exercise time at all on some occasions.96 94. The Court considers that the combined conditions of detention, particularly the use of a slop-bucket, the lack of adequate lightning and ventilation, and the fact that the alleged victims had to stay in their jail cells for 23 hours of each day for more than four years, as well as the overcrowded conditions, together amount to treatment contrary to the dignity of every human being, and thus constitutes a violation of Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Messrs. Boyce, Joseph, Atkins and Huggins.97 States of America: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Barbados 2001 (case file of appendices to the application, volume IV, appendix C.4, folios 1542). 90 Cf. Affidavit of John Nurse, supra note 89, (folios 6554-6555); Testimony of John Nurse, supra note 88, (transcription, pg. 43-44); Report to the National Commission on Law and Order, June 2004 (appointed by decision made by the Cabinet of Ministers of Barbados on September 19, 2002), Chapter 7, pg. 123, available at http://www.publicworks.gov.bb/Docs/lawprind.pdf (last visited on October 16, 2007), and press release, “Prison Roll Jumps to 900”, October 10, 2002 (case file of appendices to the application, volume IV, appendix C.2, folios 1527-1528). 91 Cf. Affidavit of John Nurse, supra note 89, (folio 6555), and Report to the National Commission on Law and Order, supra note 90. 92 Cf. Affidavits of Lennox Boyce, Jeffrey Joseph, Frederick Atkins and Michael Huggins on the conditions of confinement, August 17, 2004 (case file of appendices to the application, volume IV, appendix D.2, folios 1566-1577); Affidavit of John Nurse, supra note 89, (folios 6554-6556), and Testimony of John Nurse, supra note 88, (transcription, pg. 48-49). 93 Cf. Affidavits of Lennox Boyce, Jeffrey Joseph, Frederick Atkins and Michael Huggins on the conditions of confinement, supra note 92, and Affidavit of John Nurse, supra note 89, (folios 6555). 94 Cf. Affidavits of Lennox Boyce, Jeffrey Joseph, Frederick Atkins and Michael Huggins on the conditions of confinement, supra note 92, and Affidavit of John Nurse, supra note 89, (folios 6556). 95 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 82, para. 90. See also CPT/Inf (92) 3 [EN], 2nd General Report, 13 April 1992, para. 50. 96 Cf. Affidavit of Jeffrey Joseph, supra note 34, (folio 1570), and Affidavit of Michael Huggins, supra note 36, folio 1576). 97 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al., supra note 82, para. 60; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 24, para. 315, and Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 82, para. 97.