treatment, in violation of Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, as well as Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the ICPPT. 69. For their part, the representatives affirmed that Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio, Mr. López Calo and Mr. Archila Pérez were subjected to detention conditions that did not meet international standards, and that they had to endure a prolonged wait for execution. They said that the cells had no windows and no ventilation. They added that there was a risk of death and situations of mistreatment in general, that there was no separation between them and other inmates despite the fact that they were police officers and were incarcerated with other armed groups, rivals, under constant threat of death. The representatives also maintained that waiting for the execution generated in the death row inmates a permanent anguish. 70. The State maintained that at all times it respected and protected the personal integrity of Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio, Mr. López Calo and Mr. Archila Pérez. It asserted that the diabetes that affected the development of the convicted persons could not be considered the responsibility of the State. At the same time, it indicated that at no time did the State security forces that participated in their capture cause injuries or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. By virtue of the foregoing, it concluded that at no time were the rights to humane treatment and freedom from torture, enshrined in Articles 5 of the American Convention, and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the ICPPT, violated. B. Considerations of the Court 71. The American Convention expressly recognizes the right to personal, physical and psychological integrity, the violation of which "is a type of violation that has different connotations of degree and [...] the physical and mental effects of which vary in intensity based on factors that are endogenous and exogenous factors that must be analyzed in each specific situation.80 Likewise, this Court has indicated that, in accordance with Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, any person deprived of liberty has the right to live in detention conditions compatible with their personal dignity.81 As the entity responsible for places of detention, the State plays a special role as guarantor of the rights of all those who are in its custody.82 This entails the State’s obligation to safeguard the health and welfare of prisoners, providing them, among other elements, with the required medical assistance, and ensuring that the manner and method of deprivation of liberty do not exceed the inevitable level of suffering inherent to detention.83 72. The Court will now conduct an individualized and detailed analysis of the prison conditions of Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio, Mr. López Calo and Mr. Archila Pérez, as well as the consequences that these conditions had on them. b.1 Prison conditions (i) Mr. Rodriguez Revolorio's prison conditions Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 57, and Case of the Xucuru Indigenous People and its members v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 5, 2018. Series C No. 346, para. 171. 81 Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244, para. 135. 82 Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 60, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, supra, para. 135. 83 Case of "Juvenile Reeducation Institute" v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 159, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, supra, para. 135. 80 21