punishment.”112 For its part, the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe has pointed out since 1993 that “having regard to judicial and academic consensus concerning the death row phenomenon, the prolonged delays and the harsh conditions of incarceration, a sufficient degree of seriousness had been attained to entitle the applicant to invoke the protection concerning the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading punishment.” That Supreme Court maintained that “52 and 72 months, respectively, on death row constituted a violation of the prohibition of torture and would render an actual execution unconstitutional.”113 96. The petitioners submit that the inherent cruelty of the mandatory death penalty is aggravated by the prison conditions on death row, given the restrictive regime for death row inmates and in particular close confinement, lack of exercise and the absence of facilities.114 97. The Commission notes that Messrs. Dial and Dottin were on death row from 1997 to August, 2008. The victims were therefore on death row for nearly eleven years, a period the Commission considers constitutes inhumane treatment and therefore violates the rights protected under Articles XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration. 2. Conditions on Death Row115 98. In the Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al., the Inter-American Court received expert reports about the conditions in Trinidad and Tobago’s prisons, including conditions on death row at the State prison, where Messrs. Dial and Dottin were detained while on death row. 116 In its judgment, the Court noted that, according to an expert report “the procedures leading up to the death by hanging of those convicted of murder terrorize and depress the prisoners; others cannot sleep due to nightmares, much less eat.”117 After considering the expert testimony offered on the subject, the Court found that the detention conditions compelled the victims to live under circumstances that impinged on their physical and psychological integrity and therefore constituted cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.118 99. According to the facts established in this report, not contested by the State, the victims were subject to the following conditions of detention: deprivation of daily exercise and of regular fresh air; no sanitation; no natural lighting; infestation of insects in the cells; unacceptable levels of air pollution caused by fumes from vehicles parked in the prison yard; lack of basic hygienic; inadequate and almost inedible food; and restrictive diets imposed as punishment for breaches of prison discipline. 100. Further, according to the information provided, Mr. Dial was denied a special diet required to treat an ulcer, had not been taken to medical appointment since August 2005, and experienced difficulties in obtaining prescription tablets for his condition via the prison superintendent. 101. A comparison of the alleged victims’ prison conditions with international standards for the treatment of prisoners suggests that his treatment has failed to respect minimum requirements of humane treatment. In particular, Rules 13, 14, 15, 18 and 23 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners,119 which the Inter- American Commission has previously indicated provide reliable benchmarks as to minimum international standards for the humane treatment of prisoners, prescribe the following basic standards in respect of accommodation, hygiene, and exercise:120 Supreme Court of Uganda in Attorney General v. Susan Kigula and 417 others (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2006), 2009. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe of 24 June 1993 in Catholic Commissioner for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe v. Attorney General (4) SA 239 (ZS). 114 Written submissions of the Petitioner – October 18, 2005 – Saul Lehrfreund, Parvais Jabber, Simons Muirhead & Burton. 115 Article XI (Right to the preservation of health and to well-being) of the American Declaration provides: “The right to the preservation of health and well-being – every person has the right to the preservation of his health through sanitary and social measures relating to food, clothing, housing and medical care, to the extent permitted by public and community resources.” 116 I/A Court H.R., Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 77. 117 I/A Court H.R., Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, para. 168. 118 I/A Court H.R., Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, para. 169. 119 United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (The Nelson Mandela Rules), General Assembly Resolution 70/175, A/RES/70/175, 17 December 2015. 120 IACHR. Report No. 28/09, Case 12.269, Dexter Lendore. Merits. Trinidad and Tobago. March 20, 2009, para 30. 112 113 20