60 American Convention and, if this were not admissible, [... that they could invoke new rights] it would be an undue restriction of their condition of subjects of international human rights law.”105 With regard to the rights invoked for the first time by the alleged victims’ representatives and/or their next of kin, the Court has stipulated that, “they [should] refer to facts that are already included in the application.”106 123. Article 5 of the American Convention establishes that: 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 in regards for the inherent dignity of the human person. […] 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. […] 6. Punishments consisting of deprivation of liberty shall have as an essential aim the reform and social readaptation of the prisoners. 124. According to the provisions of Article 5 of the Convention, all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated in regards for the inherent dignity of the human person.107 Moreover, the State, which is responsible for detention establishments, must ensure that prisoners are confined in conditions that respect their rights.108 125. This Court has indicated that torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, or punishment, are strictly prohibited by international human rights law.109 The prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is absolute and non-derogable, even in the most difficult circumstances, such as war, threat of war, the fight against terrorism and any other crime, martial law or state of emergency, civil war or commotion, suspension of constitutional guarantees, internal political instability or any other public disaster or emergency.110 105 Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155; and Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 27, para. 179; Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 104, paras. 134; and Case of Myrna Mack Chang. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 224. 106 Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 105, para. 155; and Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 27; Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 104, paras. 134; and Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 105, para. 224. 107 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 1, para. 150; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 1, para. 151; and Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 126. 108 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 1, para. 150; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 1, para. 152; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 107, para. 126. 109 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 1, para. 143; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 27, para. 111; and Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 104, para. 89. 110 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 1, para. 143; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 27, para. 111; and Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 104, para. 89.