72 197. Furthermore, the Court has stipulated that although Article 11 of the American Convention is entitled “Right to Privacy” [Note: Protection of Honor and Dignity in the Spanish version], its contents include the protection of private life. 337 The concept of private life includes sexual life among other protected areas. 338 The Court finds that the rape and other forms of sexual violence perpetrated against Gladys Espinoza violated essential aspects and values of her private life, signified interference in her sexual life, and annulled her right to take decisions freely regarding who to have sexual relations with, losing control completely of her most personal and intimate decisions, and with regard to basic bodily functions. 339 Consequently, owing to the sexual violence and rape that Gladys Espinoza suffered, the Court finds that the State also violated Article 11(1) and 11(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to her detriment. C) Detention conditions of Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles in the Yanamayo Maximum Security Prison of Puno and the incident that occurred on August 5, 1999 C.1. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 198. The Commission asserted that Gladys Espinoza served part of her sentence for the crime of treason while articles 20 of Decree Law No. 25,475 and 3 of Decree Law No. 25,744 were in force, norms that established permanent solitary confinement during the first year of imprisonment, a maximum security regime throughout the prison term, access to the open air for 30 minutes a day, and a series of restrictions on visits. According to the Commission, this regime, added to the general detention conditions, violated the human dignity of those who were serving sentences for terrorism or treason. It has also been established that not only was the regime established in the said decree laws applied to Gladys Espinoza, but also that she was subjected to severe detention conditions at the Yanamayo Prison, in an inhospitable and exceedingly cold climate, with limited access to natural light, and without sufficient food or adequate medical care. In addition, the Commission indicated that Gladys Espinoza was not provided with a specialized neurological evaluation, in spite of having requested it and of a prison doctor having recommended this. 199. Furthermore the Commission affirmed that on August 5, 1999, agents of the National Special Operations Directorate of the Peruvian National Police (DINOES) conducted an inspection of the Yanamayo prison block where Ms. Espinoza was being held with excessive use of force. It added that the prison authorities and the members of the DINOES pitilessly attacked inmates of Yanamayo’s Block 1D, deliberately beating them in order to punish them. Despite the injuries recorded in the Ombudsman’s report of August 25, 1999, the prison authorities did not provide prompt medical care in order to protect the victim’s integrity. The injuries reported by the Ombudsman reveal that the supposed beating received by the presumed victim caused her very intense physical suffering. Lastly, according to the Commission, the presumed torture that occurred during the inspection did not result in a criminal investigation or the punishment of those responsible. Consequently, the Peruvian State failed to comply with the obligation to respect and to ensure the rights established in Article 5(1), 5(2) and 5(6) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this treaty, and failed to comply with the obligations established in Articles 1 and 6 of the ICPPT, all to the detriment of Gladys Espinoza. 337 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, para. 193, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 367. 338 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 129, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 367. 339 Cf. Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 367.