73 200. The representatives indicated that, starting in January 1996, the presumed victim was in solitary confinement, locked up for 23 hours a day, in a place that was inaccessible for her family and under difficult medical and nutritional conditions. As a result of the poor nutrition and the climatic conditions, Gladys Espinoza developed bronchopneumonia. During her imprisonment, she was also a victim of violent searches and beatings on numerous occasions. Regarding the incident that occurred on August 5, 1999, they alleged that, due to its severity, the violence presumably suffered by Gladys Espinoza constituted acts of torture under Article 2 of the ICPPT. Based on the foregoing, they argued that Peru had violated Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, as well as Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the ICPPT and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 201. The State argued that although Gladys Espinoza served part of her sentence while article 20 of Decree Law No. 25,475 and article 3 of Decree Law No. 25,744 were in force, the provisions concerning imprisonment of the anti-terrorism laws issued in the 1990s had been the subject of an action on unconstitutionality by the Constitutional Court of Peru, and had been annulled. In other words, the prison conditions during the first half of the 1990s had been rectified by the State itself by eliminating this regime and adopting successive normative and administrative changes. It also argued that, on April 17, 2001, the presumed victim had been transferred from the Yanamayo Prison to the Aucayama Prison in Huaral, and was currently in the Chorrillos Women’s Maximum Security Prison. The State also indicated that, the Public Prosecution Service had been conducting a criminal investigation in order to clarify the facts and to punish those presumably responsible for the supposed events that occurred on August 5, 1999. C.2. Considerations of the Court 202. The Court will deal, first, with the detention conditions endured by Ms. Espinoza Gonzáles in the Yanamayo Maximum Security Prison of Puno and, then, will consider the incident that occurred during the inspection on August 5, 1999. C.2.1. Detention conditions of Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles in the Yanamayo Maximum Security Prison of Puno 203. It is a proven fact that Gladys Espinoza was incarcerated in the Yanamayo Maximum Security Prison of Puno from January 17, 1996, to May 10, 2001 (supra para. 79). During this time, Gladys Espinoza was subjected to a regime established for those prosecuted and/or sentenced for terrorism and treason. 340 This prison is located at 3,800 meters above sea level, 15 minutes from Puno; there, Ms. Espinoza lived in the following conditions: she was subjected to a prison regime of solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, and only allowed out into the fresh air for one hour; there were continuous uprisings by the prisoners and violent searches by the State agents; 341 it was extremely cold and the inmates did not have sufficient clothing or coverings, or any type of heating; the water used for drinking, cooking, bathing and washing the clothes and bedclothes and in the washrooms was contaminated and very cold and scarce; 342 there were no lights in the cells; the corridors had florescent lighting every two cells, and skylights that restricted the entry of sunlight; the food was deficient, limited and unhealthy; health care requirements were provided by a single general physician, which did not allow the 340 Cf. Report of the Peruvian Ombudsman on the Yanamayo Prison, Puno, of August 25, 1999 (evidence file, folios 1580 to 1588). 341 Cf. Affidavit made by Gladys Espinoza on March 26, 2014 (merits file, folio 907); Statement made by Gladys Espinoza on March 2010 (evidence file, folios 1462 and 1463), and Forensic report No. 003821-V of January 22, 2004, prepared by experts of the Institute of Forensic Medicine of the Public Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 1561). 342 Cf. Affidavit made by Gladys Espinoza on March 26, 2014 (merits file, folio 907). See also, Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru, supra, para. 87.74, Case of García Asto and Case of Ramírez Rojas v. Peru, supra, para. 224.