19 television. They added that the method of execution by firing squad constituted torture and concluded that the State had violated the right to personal integrity of Messrs. Girón and Castillo under Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument and Articles 1 and 6 of the ICPPT. 77. Regarding Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, the State indicated that it was undeniable that capital punishment, whatsoever the method used to execute it, tends to affect the person who must be subjected to this punishment mentally and physically. It also indicated that neither the Commission nor the public defenders had specified the circumstances that proved that Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo Mendoza were direct victims of torture or of degrading acts that endangered their physical integrity or life, a situation that the defense did not argue during the criminal proceedings against them. With regard to the alleged violation of Articles 1 and 6 of the ICPPT, it asked the Court to declare this claim inadmissible. B. Considerations of the Court 78. It should be recalled that the Court has indicated that Article 5(1) of the Convention recognizes, in general terms, the right to personal integrity, both physical and mental and also moral. Meanwhile, Article 5(2) establishes, specifically, the absolute prohibition to subject someone to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Court understands that any violation of Article 5(2) of the American Convention necessarily involves the violation of Article 5(1) thereof.57 The violation of the right to physical and mental integrity has diverse manifestations that range from torture to other types of ill-treatment or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the physical and mental aftereffects of which vary in intensity based on endogenous and exogenous factors (duration of the treatment, age, sex, health, context and vulnerability, among others), which must be analyzed in each specific situation.58 79. This Court has had the occasion to rule on the so-called “death row phenomenon” in the case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago and in the case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. The Court notes that, in both the case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago and that of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala, it assessed the expert opinions provided concerning the specific and intrinsic detention conditions of those condemned to death and victims in these cases, as well as concerning the concrete impact on them, which resulted in a violation of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument.59 In addition, the European Court of Cf. Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 129, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 371, para. 177. 58 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, paras. 57 and 58, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, supra, para. 177. 59 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra, paras. 167 to 172, and Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala supra, paras. 97 to 102. 57