96 detainees to be administered medical assistance by a medical doctor chosen by them or by their legal representatives or guardians.184 228. The Court notes that, in spite of his prostate problems (supra para. 97(57)). Wilson García-Asto did not receive adequate and timely medical assistance in the Yanamayo and Challapaca Penitentiaries; this has caused a detriment to his health and is contrary to the humane treatment to which every human being is entitled pursuant to Article 5 of the American Convention. 229. Furthermore, the Court concludes that the detention conditions imposed to Wilson García-Asto, as well as the lack of communication, the cell isolation regime, and the restriction of visits by their next of kin amounted to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment which derived in the violation of his physical, mental, and moral integrity. Consequently, and taking into consideration the acknowledgement of the facts occurred prior to September 2000 made by the State (supra paras. 52 to 60,), the Court considers that the State is liable for the violation of Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Wilson GarcíaAsto. * 230. The Court has considered proven that Wilson García-Asto’s next of kin have endured great pain and suffering and have been constantly worried as a consequence of the degrading and inhuman detention conditions suffered by the alleged victim, the isolation to which he was subject, the distance and inaccessibility of the different penitentiaries to which he was transferred. All of the above constituted a violation of the mental and moral integrity of the alleged victim’s next of kin (supra paras. 97(62) and 97(63)). 231. Consequently, and considering the acknowledgement of the facts prior to September 2000 made by the State (supra paras. 52 to 60,) the Court considers that Peru is liable for the violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention, regarding Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Napoleón García-Tuesta, Celia Asto-Urbano, Gustavo García-Asto, and Elisa García-Asto. b) Regarding the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention to the detriment of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas 232. In this section, the Court shall refer to the general considerations stated in paragraphs 216 to 223 and 227 of this Judgment. * 233. The Court considers that the detention conditions imposed on Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas (supra paras. 97(120), 97(122), and 97(127)), as well as the lack of 184 Cf. Case of De la Cruz-Flores, supra note 4, para. 122; Case of Tibi, supra note 142, para. 157; and Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 131; In that regard, cf. UN Principles for the Protection of All Persons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by the General Assembly in Resolution 43/173, of December 9, 1988, Principle 24.