to Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, everyone has right to live in conditions of detention compatible with their personal dignity; furthermore, since the State is responsible for prisoners, and exercises total control over them, it must guarantee the right to life and personal integrity of persons deprived of liberty.28 26. The Court has constantly held that, under the general obligations to respect and guarantee human rights established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, there are special duties that derive from these obligations, which are determined on the basis of the particular needs for protection of the subject of law, either owing to his personal situation or to the specific situation in which he finds himself.29 In this same line of ideas, regarding persons who have been deprived of liberty, the State has a special role as guarantor in respect of prisoners, given that the prison authorities exert strong command and control over the persons in their custody.30 This results from the special relationship and interaction of subordination between the person deprived of liberty and the State, where the State can be rigorous in regulating a prisoner’s rights and obligations, and determining the circumstances of his internment; the inmate is thereby prevented from satisfying, on his own account, certain basic needs that are essential for living with dignity.31 27. In addition, the Inter-American Court has gradually incorporated into its vast case law various standards on prison conditions and on the State’s obligation to observe these in favor of persons deprived of liberty. 32 In this sense, the Inter-American Court has Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 60 and Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012 Series C No. 241, para. 63. 28 Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 111; and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244, para. 137. 29 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20 and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010 Series C No. 218, para. 198. 30 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute" v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 152 and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013 Series C No. 260, para. 188. 31 Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012 Series C No. 241, para. 67. Among other matters, the Inter-American Court has stated that a) Overcrowding is, in itself, a violation of personal integrity, since it hinders the normal execution of essential functions in prisons (Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 20, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 204); b) Those who are being processed must be separated from those who have been convicted; and children must be held separately from adults, so that those deprived of liberty receive treatment appropriate to their situation. (Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 263 and Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 200); c) All those deprived of liberty must have access to potable water for personal consumption and to water for personal hygiene; lack of drinking water constitutes grave negligence by the State with regard to its obligation of guarantee to those in its custody (Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010 Series C No. 218, para. 216); d) All cells must have sufficient natural or artificial light, ventilation and adequate conditions of hygiene; latrines must be hygienic and offer privacy (Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, paras. 94, 95 and 146; and Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 315); e) Disciplinary measures that constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, including corporal punishment, prolonged solitary confinement, and any 32 10