B.1. The right to personal integrity of Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López 182. Under Article 5 of the Convention, all persons deprived of liberty have the right to be placed in a situation of detention that is compatible with their personal dignity. The Court has pointed out that the physical harm, suffering, damages to health and general harm suffered by persons while they are deprived of liberty may be a form of cruel treatment when, due to the conditions of the confinement, there is a deterioration of physical, mental and moral integrity, strictly prohibited by Article 5(2) of the Convention, which is not a natural and direct consequence of the deprivation of liberty itself. With regard to the conditions of detention, the Court has stated that maintaining persons in conditions of isolation and incommunicado or unduly restricting visits violates the right to personal integrity. 137 183. The Court has noted that various experts who appeared at the public hearing stated that “different international and national bodies have documented that the condition of incommunicado is a common practice when the measure of arraigo is imposed.” The experts, likewise, indicated, that there have been reports of cases of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in applying that measure. 138 They also stated that, in addition to “encouraging torture, arraigo is related to incommunicado and to impeding the right to an adequate defense” and that “the lack of access to an adequate defense is frequently combined with a lack of contact with family members or other persons, in a context of incommunicado.” 139 184. On this point, the UN Human Rights Committee has stated that “persons detained under “arraigo” are exposed to ill-treatment” 140 and the Sub-Committee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has observed “of all of the reports of abuse heard by the delegation during its visit, the most alarming came from people held under “arraigo” (investigative or pre-trial detention).” It has also pointed out that, where there have been detentions under arraigo, “although this form of detention is intended to be the least restrictive of liberty, it is in fact - since persons detained under this arrangement have not yet been formally investigated - the form of detention that is the most restrictive of the liberty of the individual. People under arraigo are at times held completely incommunicado and neither their families nor their lawyers have any information on their whereabouts. Such situations can render the individual defenseless against situations of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The delegation interviewed persons detained under arraigo in all the states visited.” It concluded that “the institution of arraigo penal could lead to encouraging the practice of torture by creating spaces of little oversight and vulnerability for the persons held under arraigo, who do not have any clearly defined legal status to be able to exercise their right of defense.” 141 185. The representatives asserted that “the repeated state of incommunicado of the victims during the first days of detention and even the judicial order of detention under arraigo caused them severe anguish, especially because they did not know what was happening at the beginning and also when they learned that they were being investigated for the grave offense of terrorism, which they did not commit and on which the State ultimately acquitted them.” In addition, “the fact that the detention of the victims was arbitrary increased their vulnerability before the authorities, which added to the precarious conditions of detention of arraigo and the Mexican penitentiary system, and the threats to which they were subjected infringed their right to mental integrity.” In turn, Gerardo Tzompaxtle declared that the damages caused to them “are much mental damage, psychological damage, societal Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, supra, para. 150; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 315 and Case of Hernández v. Argentina, supra, para. 60. 137 138 Statement of expert Carlos María Pelayo Moller, offered at the public hearing. Also, statement of the expert Luis Raúl González Pérez at the public hearing. 139 Affidavit of Stephanie Erin Brewer, offered at the public hearing (evidence file, f. 31096 et seq.). 140 Cf. UN, Final observations of the Human Rights Committee (April 7, 2010), CCPR/C/MEX/CO/5, para. 15. Cf. UN, Report on the visit of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to Mexico (May 31, 2010), CAT/OP/MEX/1, paras. 142, 217 and 238. 141 42