66 distant and isolated place [...] so that it could not accept the presumption to create relationships where they did not exist, according to the testimony that had been presented.” * * 147. * Article 5 of the 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 with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. [...] 148. The Court considers that it should proceed to examine the possible violation of Article 5 of the Convention from two different perspectives. First, it should examine whether or not there was a violation of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention to the detriment of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez. Second, the Court will evaluate whether the next of kin of the victim were also subjected to the violation of their right to humane treatment. 149. The Court considers that it has been proved that Bámaca Velásquez was detained by members of the Army and that his detention was not communicated to a competent judge or to his next of kin (supra 121 h, i). 150. As this Court has already established, a “person who is unlawfully detained is in an exacerbated situation of vulnerability creating a real risk that his other rights, such as the right to humane treatment and to be treated with dignity, will be violated”98. We should add to the foregoing that: “prolonged isolation and deprivation of communication are in themselves cruel and inhuman treatment, harmful to the psychological and moral integrity of the person and a violation of the right of any detainee to respect for his inherent dignity as a human being”99. Solitary confinement produces moral and psychological suffering in the detainee, places him in a particularly vulnerable position, and increases the risk of aggression and arbitrary acts in detention centers100. Therefore, the Court has stated that, “in international human rights law [...] incommunicado detention is considered to be an exceptional instrument and [...] its use during detention may constitute an act against human dignity.”101 98 Cf. Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note 56, para. 90; Villagrán Morales et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 166; and similarly, Eur. Court H.R., Case of Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25. para. 167. 99 Cf. Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, supra note 53, para. 149; Godínez Cruz Case, supra merits, paras. 164 and 197; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 53, paras. 156 and 187. 100 Cf. Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, supra note 50, para. 195; and Suárez Rosero Case, supra note 53, para. 90. 101 Cf. Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note 56, para. 82; and Suárez Rosero Case, supra note 53, para. 90.