right to personal liberty, with respect to the right to appeal the detentions so that their legality be decided, as established in Article 7(6) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Wilmer Antonio Barliza González, Fernando González, María Angélica González and Belkis Mirelis González. VII.2 RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY AND THE PROHIBITION OF TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT 142 A) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 134. The Commission noted that the “petioner” claimed that the six alleged victims who were deprived of their liberty were placed with convicted inmates during their preventive detention and that the State did not present any information to the Commission that would contradict this claim. Therefore, the Commission concluded that Venezuela had infringed Article 5(1) and (4) of the Convention, relating to the right to personal integrity. 135. The representatives agreed with the Commission’s allegations, pointing out that the placing of the victims with convicted inmates occurred during their deprivation of liberty in the National Penitentiary. 136. The representatives also alleged that there were “acts of physical and psychological torture suffered by the [alleged] victims [who were deprived of their liberty]” and that they were subjected to “inhuman conditions of incarceration.” They believed that this, in addition to their placing with convicted inmates, as well as the “context of harassment and violence suffered, demonstrated that the State was responsible for the violation of Articles 1, 5 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.” In support of their claim, in addition to what has already been stated, they maintained that the alleged victims who were deprived of their liberty “received continual death threats and harassment by other inmates friendly with members of the [M.F.] family.” 137. The State denied that it was responsible for the violation of Article 5(4) of the Convention. In its argument, it did not refer to the facts of the case, but rather it “reported on the change in the penitentiary system in Venezuela.” It claimed that the new penitentiary regime is a guarantor of human rights that has enabled substantive improvement, such as “greater control,” construction and the reconditioning of “appropriate spaces,” reduction in violence, reduction in the rate of deprivation of liberty and increase in the “installed capacity.” 138. Venezuela, in addition, denied its responsibility for “alleged tortures and cruel treatments.” It argued that “at no time during the criminal proceedings against the alleged victims was that situation denounced.” It added that “the record only shows the request for a change of place of incarceration because of threats, which was resolved in a timely fashion by the trial court.” It concluded that “the infringement of a right that was never denounced for being violated in the domestic legal proceedings should never be invoked.” B) Considerations of the Court Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture 142 36