argued that Mr. Díaz Peña had serious health problems in his ears, especially his left ear, “which had been treated belatedly” and which were the “result of colds that never ended owing to his allergy to dust, and having to breath impure air because the air did not circulate owing to the absence of windows.” In this regard, she referred to supposed contradictions between the medical reports prepared by independent doctors and those prepared by the DISIP medical staff, and indicated that “the State only provided reports by general practitioners that had been prepared following examinations without the necessary medical equipment used by the specialists, and this is why they concluded that Díaz Peña was a healthy adult,” while the reports that indicated “the risks of encephalitis, meningitis or another serious illnesses that would place Díaz Peña’s life at risk,” as well as the need for an operation, were simply ignored by the State,238 and this had led to a health problem from which the presumed victim still suffered. Lastly, she argued that a change in the place of detention had been requested and all the necessary steps had been taken, but this had not happened “owing to the State’s lack of interest; hence, the detention conditions required to ensure that the harm to [the presumed victim’s] integrity was alleviated, had not materialized.” 133. In response, the State indicated that it had guaranteed the fundamental rights of those held for trial or sentenced and convicted who were in the place formerly known as the DISIP – now the General Directorate of the Bolivarian National Intelligence System (SEBIN) – and complied absolutely with the necessary conditions of health and hygiene. In addition, it argued that Mr. Díaz Peña had been provided with the pertinent medical treatment. Specifically, it indicated that the DISIP facilities had areas for physical activities, a place for visits by family and friends, an electric stove, electrical appliances, refrigerators to keep food cool, and area for conjugal visits with its respective bathroom, and acceptable conditions of hygiene, as well as cells provided with several fire extinguishers distributed in the different corridors. In addition, it referred to the existence of a log entry of November 21, 2005, recording the physical conditions and the guarantees of the human rights of Mr. Díaz Peña. 134. The State indicated that Mr. Díaz Peña was always provided with the pertinent medical care and that the judge of the case had allowed him to go to the Instituto Médico Otorrinolaringológico, on Santa Cruz Street, Chuao, Miranda state, which was “one of the best medical centers in Caracas,” where he had been by a specialist on June 14, September 14 and November 28, 2006. Furthermore, on January 8, 2007, the DISIP Director General had informed the State’s Agent at the time of Mr. Díaz Peña’s transfer to the said medical center for a medical evaluation and cleaning of his ear. The State argued that doctors at the Military Hospital had also been able “to examine the problem with his left ear.” Similarly, the State referred to the records, visits, and examinations of Mr. Díaz Peña of November 21, 2005, June 16, July 28 and October 19, 2006, April 25 and August 6, 2007, September 9 and October 2, 2009. B) Considerations of the Court 135. This Court has indicated that, according to Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention,239 any person deprived of liberty has the right to live in detention conditions compatible with his personal dignity. As the entity responsible for places of detention, the State plays a special role as guarantor 238 The representative affirmed that Mr. Díaz Peña had been treated seven time, “only not by a specialist,” and although it was true that the alleged victim had been treated in the Chuao Ear, Nose and Throat Clinic twice, on September 14, 2006 and on November 28, 2007, during the second visit, “an urgent operation to save the diseased ear” had been recommended,” and therefore “the visits to the [said] Center [had] ceased.” Lastly, she mentioned that “[t]wo examinations [by] forensic physicians [had confirmed] the need for specialized medical equipment.” 239 The pertinent part of Article 5 of the American Convention stipulates that: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 48