91. Regarding the visiting regime, the Court recalls that visits must be guaranteed in penitentiary centers and that confinement under a restricted visiting regime may be contrary to the right to humane treatment in certain circumstances.124 In the instant case, the Court notes that the visiting regime was very restricted, since most visits took place without physical contact,125 and the inmates were handcuffed by the wrist to a tube while the family was on the other side, where they could only touch each other's fingers through the bars.126 In addition to the foregoing, Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio made an allegation at the public hearing held before this Court, that he went for approximately two and a half months without visits,127 and Mrs. Morataya de Archila, widow of Mr. Archila Pérez, stated that she was never allowed to see her then husband during the period he was held in the "El Infiernito" prison.128 92. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the prison conditions in which Messrs. Rodríguez Revolorio, López Calo and Archila Pérez were detained did not meet the minimum material requirements for humane treatment129 and constituted cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of the provisions of Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, as well as Article 6 of the IACPPT. b.2 Death row 93. Next, the Court must determine whether the subjection of Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio, Mr. López Calo and Mr. Archila Pérez to the death row constituted, in this particular case, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in the light of Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention. 94. This Court has had the opportunity to rule on the so-called "death row phenomenon" in the case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago130 and in the case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. As this Court has pointed out, to determine the existence of a violation of al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 241, para. 67. 124 Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 58, and Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 67. 125 Cf. Expert report of Aída Castro-Conde Barrios on the state of mental health of Miguel Ángel López Calo and Miguel Ángel Rodríguez Revolorio, of June 23, 2005 (evidence file, folio 268). See also, Testimony of Miguel Ángel Rodríguez Revolorio given at the public hearing before the Inter-American Court held on March 8, 2019. 126 Expert report by Aída Castro-Conde Barrios on the mental health of Miguel Ángel López Calo and Miguel Ángel Rodríguez Revolorio, of June 23, 2005 (evidence file, folio 268). In this regard, Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio also indicated the following: "We had no visitors, the food was really bad, it was not good food, we suffered there because we had no water, in short, we lived a terrible situation. When we had the opportunity to have our visit, we had it without physical contact with bars and sieves where we could not even touch the fingertips of our children who also suffered a lot seeing us in this situation.” Cf. Testimony of Miguel Ángel Rodríguez Revolorio given at the public hearing before the Inter-American Court held on March 8, 2019. 127 Cf. Testimony of Miguel Ángel Rodríguez Revolorio given at the public hearing before the Inter-American Court held on March 8, 2019. 128 In this regard, Mrs. Morataya de Archila stated the following: "On 29 May, 1999 he was transferred to a maximum security prison which they called El INFIERNITO, located in the department of ESCUINTLA […] when I went there they didn't let me see him. Even when I took my children they never let me see him; I asked to see him and they refused to let me see him because they told me that he was sick […] and they asked me for medicine and serums and they never gave them to him. I spoke, I asked to speak to the director of the prison and he told me that he was already better and I asked to see him and he denied me, I even told the director that if he could give him to me with an escort to take him to the doctor, because I had not seen him nor did I believe he was sick, that is why I wanted to see him [...]" (Statement rendered before a notary public by Irma Morales Moratava de Archilla, of March 1, 129 Cf. Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 69 and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, supra, para. 141. 130 Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94. 28