35 Consequently, the State, which is responsible for detention facilities, is the guarantor of these rights of detainees.45 88. In the provisional measures related to the case of Mrs. María Elena LoayzaTamayo, who was tried at the same time as Mr. Cantoral-Benavides for the crimes of treason against the fatherland and terrorism, this Tribunal concluded that the prison conditions for persons accused of such crimes did not comply with the provisions of the American Convention, and ordered the State to modify the conditions in which Maria Elena Loayza-Tamayo was being held, especially as regards her isolation in cell(s), for the purpose of bringing such conditions into line 46 with the provisions of Article 5 of the American Convention […]. Also, it ordered the State to provide the prisoner with medical attention, both physical and psychological, as soon as possible. 89. The Court has established that Holding a person incommunicado, public exhibition in defamatory clothing before the media, isolation in a small cell, without ventilation or natural light, […] restriction of visiting rights […], constitute forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as per Article 5(2) of the American Convention.47 90. Also, the Court, for its part, has reiterated that “a person illegally detained […] is in a situation of heightened vulnerability in which there is a high risk of his/her rights being violated, such as the right to physical integrity and to be treated with dignity.”48 91. There are sufficient reasons to assert that, in addition to being held incommunicado, and having been subjected to very hostile and restrictive prison conditions, Mr. Cantoral-Benavides was on several occasions beaten and physically mistreated in other ways, and that this caused him severe bodily injury and emotional suffering (supra para. 43.a. and 63.f. and j.). 92. Other persons tried along with Mr. Cantoral-Benavides said in their statements that they suffered acts of aggression similar to those inflicted upon him (supra paras. 38 and 43.c.). 93. The Courts deems it pertinent to consider the facts that make up the present case in the context of the practices prevailing at the time in Peru vis-à-vis persons accused of the crimes of treason against the fatherland and terrorism. 94. When adopting the judgment on merits in the Loayza-Tamayo case (1997), whose evidence was incorporated into the file of the present case (supra para. 38), the Court affirmed that 45 cfr. Durand and Ugarte Case. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Neira-Alegría et al. Case, supra note 14, para. 60. Series C No. 68, para. 78, and 46 Loayza-Tamayo Case, Provisional Measures, Decision of the Court of September 13, 1996, Operative Paragraph 1. 47 48 Loayza-Tamayo Case, supra note 12, para. 58. cfr. Villagrán-Morales et al. Case. Judgment of September 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 166; Suárez-Rosero Case, supra note 10, para. 90, and Loayza-Tamayo Case, supra note 12, para 57.