result in a violation of the absolute prohibition to inflict cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 72 85. Furthermore, the Court has considered that detention in overcrowded conditions, with lack of ventilation and natural light, without a bed to rest on, or adequate hygiene conditions, in isolation or solitary confinement, or with undue restrictions on visits constitutes a violation of personal integrity.73 In this regard, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners establish basic criteria for interpreting the content of the right of those deprived of liberty to decent and humane treatment.74 These rules include the strict prohibition of corporal punishment and confinement in dark cells, as well as the basic norms regarding accommodation and hygiene.75 86. In the circumstances of this case, Mr. Fleury was detained in an overcrowded cell with no ventilation, without adequate sanitary facilities and conditions of hygiene, and without access to food and drinking water (supra para. 35). Irrespective of the duration of the detention, any person in that situation must be treated with due respect for their dignity. 87. This Court finds that the detention conditions endured by Mr. Fleury did not meet the minimum standards of detention required by the international instruments, so that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 3. The alleged violation of the right to personal integrity to the detriment of Mr. Fleury’s family 88. The Court observes that Mr. Fleury’s family were affected by his condition in several ways: (a) his wife and eldest daughter witnessed his arrest and his ill-treatment, a situation which caused anguish and significant moral and mental suffering; (b) Mrs. Fleury saw her husband’s condition on leaving the police station where he had been tortured; (c) Mrs. Fleury and her children experienced extreme moral suffering upon being separated from their husband and father during the years in which he remained in hiding for fear of reprisals; (d) Mr. Fleury’s immediate family endured anxiety and anguish for years because they felt that were being watched by unknown individuals who were looking for him, and (e) Mr. Fleury’s wife and children had to emigrate from Haiti to be reunited with him, which 72 Cf. 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 regard, the Committee against Torture has stated that “[o]vercrowding, lack of amenities and poor hygiene in prisons, the lack of basic services and of appropriate medical attention in particular, [… i]n 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 of 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, twenty-fifth session (13 to 24 November 2000) / twenty-sixth session (30 April to 18 May 2001), A/56/44, 10 May 2001, para. 95(f). 73 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, supra note 23, para. 58, and Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti, supra note 7, para. 131. See also Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council in its resolutions 663C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977, Rules 10 and 11. 74 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, para. 99 and Case of Vera Vera v. Ecuador, supra note 69, para. 50. 75 Cf. United Nations, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, Rules 9 to 15. 24