stated that in that penitentiary, at the time of the events, the “proper classification between the convicted and those being prosecuted” was not observed and that the penitentiary was designed to hold only convicted inmates and conditions did not exist to separate the convicted and those preventively deprived of their liberty. 152 Therefore, Venezuela did not comply with the terms of Article 5(4) of the Convention. This transgression also violated the presumption of innocence, a principle recognized in Article 8(2) of the Convention, for the reasons already stated (supra para. 144). This failure is not sufficient to hold that the victims suffered cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or acts of torture. 148. State conduct with respect to threats.- With respect to the claims of threats received by the alleged victims while they were in the National Penitentiary, the Court recalls that the State has the duty to prevent violations of human rights of persons under its custody.153 On December 14, 1998, the lawyer of Fernando González, Belkis González and María Angélica González informed the judicial authorities of the threats received by his clients and requested their transfer to another establishment. On that same day, the judicial authority requested the director of the penitentiary to designate a place for those three persons in view of their personal security and physical integrity and later the director informed that Fernando González had been placed in the infirmary and Belkis and María Angélica in “a secured section.” On December 21, 1998, a judicial order transferred Fernando González to the El Marite Center. 149. On the other hand, Luis Guillermo González, Wilmer Antonio Barliza and Olimpiades González were detained in the National Penitentiary and the mother of the former requested the transfer of all three to another establishment. On February 23, 1999, the three detainees reported that they had been threatened and, on March 2, they were transferred to the El Marite Center. 150. The above demonstrates that, due to the reported threats, the State adopted actions to protect the personal integrity of the alleged victims. Therefore, it is not appropriate to declare an infringement to the right of personal integrity for the threats or for the failure to adopt the respective measures. 151. Retaining María Angélica and Belkis González in solitary confinement. – In spite of what was recently stated, the Court notes that María Angélica and Belkis González remained several months in solitary confinement. The latter declared that she and her sister shared a cell with a convicted prisoner (supra footnote at page 44). María Angélica stated that the cell lacked space, that there was not sufficient access to water since they were given “non-treated” water once a week and they had “to learn how to collect that water so that it would last the week” and that they were not provided with medical service while they were there.154 The expert Alejandra Sapene Chapellín stated that the “deplorable conditions” in which Belkis and María Angélica González were deprived of their liberty created in them “a persistent traumatic memory that alters their reasoning and their emotions.”155 152 Written expert opinion of Víctor Manuel Velazco Prieto (evidence file, fs. 2836 to 2894). Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 152 and Case of Mota Abarullo et al. v. Venezuela, para. 88. 153 154 Written statement of María Angélica González before the Court. 155 Written expert opinion of Alejandra Sapene Chapellín (evidence file, fs. 2795 to 2834). 39