medical treatment,245 that is adequate, timely246 and, where appropriate, specialized to meet the special care needs of the detained persons in question. 247 172. The European Court of Human Rights has also recognized the obligation of States to ensure medical care for prisoners and to provide special care in situations of emergency or special care in cases of serious or terminal illness. 248 Likewise, the UN Human Rights Committee has established that when States detain a person they assume a special responsibility for their life, and must therefore ensure the protection of this right, including adequate medical care, which should be offered ex officio, without the need for the detained person to make a special request.249 173. This Court has indicated that lack of adequate medical assistance for a person deprived of liberty and in the State’s custody could be considered per se a violation of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, depending on the specific circumstances of the individual in question, his state of health, the type of disease or ailment, the time spent without treatment, the cumulative physical and mental effects, 250and, in some cases, the individual’s sex and age.251 It is clear that, since the State exerts control over detainees and as well as over the evidence concerning their physical state, conditions of detention and possible medical attention, the onus is on the State to verify that it has properly respected and ensured the See ECHR, Tarariyeva v. Russia, No. 4353/03, Judgment of December 14, 2006, para. 76, and Slawomir Musial v. Poland, No. 28300/06, Judgment of January 20, 2009, paras. 85-88. See also United Nations Committee on Human Rights: Pinto v. Trinidad and Tobago, Communication No. 232/1987) UN Doc. CCPR/C/39/D/232/1987, of August 21, 1990, para. 12.7; Kelly v. Jamaica, Communication No. 253/1987, UN Doc CCPR/C/41/D/253/1987, of 10 April 1991, para. 5.7; Lantsova v. Russian Federation, Communication No.763/1997, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/74/763/1997, of March 26, 2002, para. 9.2. See also: African Commission on Human Rights, Free Legal Assistance Group and others v. Zaire, Communications No. 25/89, 47/90, 56/91, 100/93, of April 4, 1994, para. 47; International PEN and Others v. Nigeria, Communications No. 137/94, 139/94, 154/86, 161/97, October 31, 1998, para. 112; Malawi African Association and Others v. Mauritania, Communications Nos. 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164/97, 196/97 and 210/98, May 11, 2000, paras. 111 and 112. 245 In this regard see, inter alia, Art. 25 (1) of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, held in Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council in Resolutions 663C (XXIV) of July 31, 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of May 13, 1977; and Principle 24 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted through Resolution 43/173 of the UN General Assembly of December 9, 1988. 246 For example, the UN Human Rights Committee has established the obligation of prison authorities to provide adequate medical care, in cases such as Pinto v. Trinidad and Tobago, Communication No. 232/1987, U. N. Doc. CCPR/C/39/D/232/1987, of August 21, 1990, para. 12.7; Lewis v. Jamaica, Communication No. 527/1993, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/57/D/527/1993, of July 18, 1996) para. 10.4; Whyte v. Jamaica, Communication No. 732/1997, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/63/D/732/1997 of July 27, 1998, para. 9.4; Leslie v. Jamaica, Communication No. 564/1993, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/63/D/564/1993, August 7, 1998, para. 3.2. See also, African Commission of Human Rights, Free Legal Assistance Group and others v. Zaire, Communications No. 25/89, 47/90, 56/91, 100/93, April 4, 1994. Para. 47. 247 In cases where persons deprived of liberty have received negligent or deficient medical treatment, States are considered to have violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, see Case of Sarban v. Moldova, No. 3456/05, Judgment of October 4, 2005. In the Case of Kudhobin v. Russia (No. 59696/00, Judgment of October 26, 2006, para. 83), the Court determined that when the authorities have knowledge of diseases that require supervision and adequate treatment, a record must be kept of the prisoner’s state of health and treatment during detention. 248 See: United Nations Human Rights Committee. Lantsova v. Russian Federation, Communication No. 763/1997, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/74/763/1997, of March 26, 2002, para. 9.2; Fabrikant v. Canada, Communication No. 970/2001, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/D/970/2001, of November 11, 2003, para. 9.3. 249 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. 103, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 190. 250 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 74; and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 190. 251 53