      The location is not considered safe for her life and integrity, which can be evidenced by the fact that the entire prison population must be locked up in order for Ms. Afiuni to go out for a walk. They also recalled that Judge Afiuni has been in danger when the “admission” door is open and no guards are present; Ms. Afiuni and her attorney have submitted several requests for changes to her place of confinement, and these have been refused. The existence of inmates in the INOF’s general area places her at permanent risk, since guard supervision of the “admission” area is frequently lacking; “[J]udge Afiuni does not enjoy the minimum sanitary conditions in her cell to subsist, nor is she provided with basic food and medicine. The authorities’ refusal to allow her the right to be exposed to sunlight has caused her much physical and psychological damage, which altogether demonstrate the State’s malicious negligence in its obligation to protect the Judge’s life and physical integrity;” The Board of Conduct governs only persons who have been convicted and not those awaiting trial. Its rulings regarding the beneficiary are therefore in violation of her rights as an accused party; On December 20, 2010, the Twenty-Sixth Court adopted several measures regarding Ms. Afiuni, but instead of executing compliance with the provisional measures, the ruling “is fraudulent and in open disregard of and noncompliance with the measures. Instead of adopting the measures necessary for the beneficiary to remain in a place of detention that is suitable to her circumstances, the State has “decided to aggravate the situation of Judge Afiuni’s preventive detention with a court ruling that orders her isolation [(by the Court ordering that she “be alone”)] and estrangement [(by ordering that she “be removed from the place where she is now”)]. This will evidently affect and worsen her life and her physical, psychological and moral integrity;5 and They recognize that the lists of visitors prepared by the State are “relatively complete, but do not [mention] the persons whose access has been denied or hindered.” They stated that the visits she receives are confined to a “dark, small space filled with mosquitoes, in order to prevent her story from being captured by cameras.” c) Regarding the third operative paragraph, the State “did not present any evidence that at any point Maria Lourdes Afiuni, before or after the provisional measures were agreed, had been seen by ‘physicians of her choosing,’ as the Court requests.” They added that the State has not provided the beneficiary with the psychotherapy treatment recommended by the tests conducted; and d) Contrary to what the State indicated, there is no action pending because Ms. Afiuni’s case “is not pending as such before any of the Committees of the United Nations Conventional System of International Protection.” They added that the claim 5 In response to the brief presented by the representatives on December 13, 2010, to request compliance with the Order of the President, the 26th Criminal Court of First Instance, operating as part of the Criminal Judicial Circuit in the Judicial District of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, ruled in orders dated December 16 and 20, respectively, to deny the request that Ms. Afiuni be transferred to another detention center and order full solitary confinement for her, with 24-hour surveillance, allowing her to be seen, if necessary, by physicians of her choosing but at State institutions. 11