59 education programs.” The State also explained that, in order to remedy the situation of overcrowding of penitentiary centers of the country, "it has adopted measures in the short and medium term,” which the State explained in detail. In this respect, it acknowledged its responsibility205 and subjected itself to the decision the Court may take. 198. This Court has held that, in the terms of Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention,206 every person deprived of her or his liberty has the right to live in detention conditions compatible with her or his personal dignity. Consequently, since the State is the institution responsible for detention establishments, it is the guarantor of these rights of the prisoner.207 This implies the State’s duty to guarantee the health and welfare of inmates by providing them, among other things, with the required medical care, and it must also ensure that the manner and method of any deprivation of liberty do not exceed the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention.208 Lack of compliance therewith may constitute a violation of the absolute prohibition against torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishment or treatment.209 In this sense, the States cannot invoke economic hardships to justify imprisonment conditions that do not comply with the minimum international standards and respect the inherent dignity of the human being.210 199. From the evidence presented in this case, it appears that, at the time of the detention of Mr. Vélez Loor, there was a shelter for migrants in the country, specifically in the Panama City, to accommodate irregular migrants while the State 205 In relation to the prison conditions acknowledged by the State, the Tribunal notes that at the end of the on-site visit to Panama and, specifically, La Joyita Penitentiary in June 2001, the Inter-American Commission issued a press release in which it referred to detention conditions that are incompatible with human dignity. It made reference, among other things, to the overpopulation; the large number of prisoners who have to sleep on the floor or in hammocks, which are sometimes placed four meters above the floor; the inadequate and in poor condition sanitation facilities, which pose health risks to the current population. Furthermore, the Commission noted serious deficiencies in the health services available to detainees, and a dearth of employment opportunities, rehabilitation programs, and recreational activities. Cf. Press Release N° 10/01 of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of June 8, 2001 (case file of the evidence, volume III, annex 29 of the application, folio 1529 and 1530). 206 Article 5 of the American Convention, states where pertinent, 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. 207 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Perú. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 60; Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 97, para. 130, and Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, paras. 85 and 87. 208 Cf. Case of the "Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and legal Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C N° 112, para. 159; Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 97, para. 130, and Case of Boyce et al v. Barbados. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C N° 169, para. 88. 209 Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 27, para. 95; Case of Boyce et al., supra note 208, para. 88, and Case of Bueno Alves, supra note 157, paras. 75 and 76. In this respect, the Committee against Torture has expressed that "[o]vercrowding, lack of amenities and poor hygiene in prisons, the lack of basic services and of appropriate medical attention in particular, the inability of the authorities to guarantee the protection of detainees in situations involving violence within prisons […] in addition to contravening the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, these and other serious inadequacies aggravate the deprivation of liberty of prisoners serving sentences and those awaiting trial, making such deprivation cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and, in the case of the latter, punishment served in advance of sentence.” United Nations, Report of the Committee against Torture, 25th period of sessions (November 13 to 14, 2000) / 26th period of sessions (April 30 to May 18, 2001), A/56/44, May 10, 2001, para. 95f. 210 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 207, and Case of Boyce et al., supra note 208, para. 88.