addition, it should be emphasized that the monitoring, denunciation and educational activities performed by human rights defenders make an essential contribution to respect for human rights, because they act as guarantors against impunity. 81. In this regard, this Court recalls that the defense of human rights can be exercised freely only when those engaged in it are not victims of threats or any kind of physical, mental or moral violence, or other acts of harassment.67 To this end, the States have the obligation to take special measures to protect human rights defenders in keeping with their functions against the acts of violence that are regularly committed against them and, among other measures, must protect them when they are threatened in order to avoid attempts on their life and integrity and generate conditions for the eradication of violations by State agents or private individuals, and investigate seriously and effectively the violations committed against them, in order to combat impunity. 68 82. Based on the above, the Court concludes that Lysias Fleury was tortured and subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment on the premises of the Bon Repos Police Station by officials of the Haitian National Police. Therefore, the State is responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity recognized in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention to the detriment of Mr. Fleury. 2. The conditions in which Mr. Fleury was detained 83. This Court has indicated that, according to Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, all those deprived of liberty have the right to live in detention conditions compatible with their personal dignity. In this regard, the States cannot invoke economic hardships to justify detention conditions that fail to comply with the relevant minimum international standards or to respect the dignity of the human being.69 84. This Court has indicated that, as the entity responsible for detention establishments, the State is in the special position of guarantor of the rights of all those in its custody.70 Similarly, in view of this relationship and special interaction of subjection, the State must assume a series of specific responsibilities and take various special initiatives to guarantee to those detained the necessary conditions to contribute to the effective enjoyment of the rights that, under no circumstances, may be restricted, as well as those rights the restriction of which does not necessarily derive from the deprivation of liberty, including the rights to life, personal integrity, and due process.71 The failure to comply with this may Offenders, UN Doc. No. A/CONF.144/28/REV.1, 7 September 1990, articles 16 to 22, and Council of the European Union, Draft conclusions of the Council on the EU guidelines on human rights defenders, 100056/1/04 REV 1, 9 June 2004. Furthermore, in a resolution of June 7, 1999, the OAS General Assembly called on the Member States to adopt the necessary measures to protect human rights defenders. AG/Res. 1671 (XXIX-0/99), Human Rights Defenders in the Americas: Support for the individuals, groups, and organization of civil society working to promote and protect human rights in the Americas.” 67 Cf. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124 Doc. 5 rev.1 of March 7, 2006, para. 46 68 Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil, supra note 66, July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 172. 69 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) v. Venezuela, supra note 60, paras. 85 and 87, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, para. 42. 70 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 60, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra note 17, para. 99. 71 Case of the Children’s Rehabilitation Institute v. Paraguay, Judgment of September 2, 2004, Series C No. 112, paras. 153 to 155 23