proceedings in which clear violations of Article 4(2) of the Convention occurred, and in violation of several precepts related to due process in the context of the criminal proceedings. (supra paras. 145 and 158). In addition, the Court notes that in the expert opinion given by Mr. Aldana Alfaro when Mr. Valenzuela was detained, he indicated that other effects “extend to his situation […] on death row, such as depression, feelings of guilt, emotional turmoil, and moderate anxiety about being distanced from family visits.”174 207. Therefore, the Court concludes that Mr. Valenzuela Ávila faced serious mental suffering from the anguish of knowing he was on "death row" after a procedure that had numerous shortcomings, which violated his right to physical, mental and moral integrity, contained in article 5(1) of the American Convention and constituted cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to article 5(2) of the Convention, all in relation to article 1(1) of the same instrument. C. Conclusion 208. In light of all the arguments set forth, this Court considers that the State is responsible for the violation of the prohibition of torture, the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for having remained on "death row", and for the lack of adequate medical care, in violation of Articles 5(1) and 5(2) and 11(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument and in relation to Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the IACPPT, to the detriment of Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila. VIII-5 RIGHT TO PERSONAL FREEDOM175 A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 209. The representatives argued that the State violated the rights contained in Articles 7(1) to 7(5), in relation to 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Tirso Román Valenzuela, because the alleged detention was “illegal and arbitrary”, since at the time of the arrest there was no court order, the prerequisites for flagrant crime were not met, he was not informed of his rights or the reason for the detention and, finally, his detention was not diligently submitted to judicial review. Additionally, they alleged the violation of Articles 7(6) and 25(1) of the Convention due to a writ of habeas corpus filed by Mr. Valenzuela, which was denied. Neither the Commission nor the State made specific allegations regarding said rights. B. Considerations of the Court 210. It should be noted that, previously, the representatives alleged the violation of this right not invoked by the Commission. In this regard, it is the established case law of this Court that the alleged victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, as long as they adhere to the facts contained in said document.176 Psychological expert opinion rendered by Juan Cristobal Aldana Alfaro, supra. Article 7 of the American Convention. 176 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2018. Series C No. 356, para. 133. 174 175 51