- 92 Therefore, this constitutes an additional violation of Article 7(6) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Wong Ho Wing. E. Alleged violation of the right to personal integrity of Wong Ho Wing 293. According to the representative, Wong Ho Wing “has suffered harm to his mental and moral integrity owing to the arbitrary deprivation of his liberty […], and this constitutes a violation of his right to personal integrity.” The State did not refer to this allegation by the representative, beyond contesting its inclusion in the factual framework of this case (supra para. 33). 294. In its case law, the Court has determined that, often, one of the inevitable consequences of deprivation of liberty is harm to the enjoyment of other human rights, such as the right to privacy and to family life, rather than merely the right to personal liberty.368 However, this restriction of rights that results from the deprivation of liberty or is one of its collateral effects must be strictly limited because, under international law, any restriction of a human right can only be justified when it is necessary in a democratic society.369 Although the Court has also stated that the restriction of the right to personal integrity, among others, is not justified based on the deprivation of liberty, and is prohibited by international law,370 an examination of the judgments in the relevant cases heard by this Court reveals that, in those cases, the detention conditions were cruel, inhuman or degrading, and even caused death or injuries, frequently of a very serious nature, to a significant number of inmates.371 295. In this case, the representative based the alleged violation of the right to personal integrity of Wong Ho Wing on his arbitrary deprivation of liberty. The Court finds that these arguments refer to what the Court has called a collateral effect of the detention.372 In addition, the Court recalls that the facts relating to the detention conditions of Wong Ho Wing in Peru are not part of this case (supra para. 36). Consequently, the Court finds that the State did not violate Article 5 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Wong Ho Wing. Notwithstanding the foregoing, when ordering any reparations that are in order, the Court will take into account, insofar as pertinent, the harm caused to Wong Ho Wing owing to his detention. XII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 368 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 108, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and an activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 390. 369 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Re-education Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 154, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and an activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 390. 370 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Re-education Institute” v. Paraguay, supra, para. 155, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and an activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 390. 371 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Re-education Institute” v. Paraguay, supra, para. 170, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and an activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 390. 372 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Re-education Institute” v. Paraguay, supra, para. 154, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and an activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 391.