established that the State, in its role as guarantor, must design and implement a prison policy to prevent any critical situations that could endanger the fundamental rights of the inmates in its custody.33 28. It is based on this vision that the Inter-American Court has considered that, as part of Article 5, the State also has a duty to safeguard the health and wellbeing of persons deprived of their liberty and to guarantee that the manner and method of their detention does not exceed the inevitable level of suffering inherent to imprisonment.34 The State must also provide regular medical attention, with the necessary and appropriate treatment by qualified medical personnel, as required.35 In addition, the food provided in prisons must be of good quality and of sufficient nutritional value.36 29. According to this traditional view, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has considered that, under Article 5 of the American Convention, the State has the duty to provide inmates with regular medical examinations and care and adequate treatment when required.37In this regard, the Inter-American Court’s analysis is based on the understanding that any breach of the right to health constitutes a failure to comply with the obligation to prevent violations of the right to life or personal integrity. However, this concept is erroneous, since every right has a facet of prevention and protection that must be assured in an integral manner. 30. In the case of Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval, the Inter-American Court took on the task of determining whether the State had provided proper treatment in an effective, adequate, other measure that may severely jeopardize the physical or mental health of the inmate is strictly prohibited ( Cf. Case of Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, para. 70). 33 Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 178. 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. 159; Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 130, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010 Series C No. 218, para. 198; and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C no. 226, para. 42. 34 Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 156; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160 para. 301; and Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 241, para. 67. 35 Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 209; and Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 241, para. 67. 36 Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 156; Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 24, para. 137, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013 Series C No. 260, para. 189. 37 11