depending on their extent and duration and the personal characteristics of the person experiencing them, because they can cause sufferings of an intensity that exceeds the limit of inevitable suffering resulting from the detention, and because they result in feelings of humiliation and inferiority. 528 In addition, States may not cite financial problems to justify detention conditions that do not comply with the minimum international standards in this area and that do not respect the dignity of the human being. 529 373. The Court notes that, contrary to the ill-treatment that occurred during the initial arrest, the presumed victim did not describe the alleged ill-treatment that occurred during Ms. J.’s detention in the DINCOTE in any of the statements she made at the domestic level. The description of this illtreatment is found in different briefs of the presumed victim in the context of the proceedings before the inter-American system, particularly in her initial petition before the Inter-American Commission. The Court reiterates that, owing to fear, the victims often abstain from reporting acts of torture or ill-treatment, especially if they remain detained in the place where such acts occurred (supra para. 337). Thus, the Court underlines that M.s J.’s first statement was made before police officials while she was still detained in the DINCOTE (supra para. 95), while her preliminary statement was given while she was detained in Santa Mónica de Chorrillos. 530 374. The Court takes note of the similarities of the context that existed at the time of the events with the alleged ill-treatment suffered by Ms. J. (supra para. 67). Despite this, the Court notes that, 531 in particular the in the absence of other evidence regarding the specific facts of this case, statement of the presumed victim in this regard, the context alone is not sufficient to prove what happened. Therefore, the Court considers that it does not have sufficient evidence to establish that Ms. J. suffered the ill-treatment that the Commission alleges occurred during the time she was detained in the DINCOTE. 375. In addition, the Court recalls that the State has the obligation to open an investigation ex officio whenever it is made aware of the possible occurrence of acts of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (supra paras. 341, 342 and 347 ). Nevertheless, the Court notes that there is no record in the case file that the State was informed of the ill-treatment that Ms. J. underwent in the DINCOTE, or that it has been advised of this internally. Consequently, the Court considers that it has not been proved that the State failed to comply with its obligation to investigate the said alleged acts. * entrance of fresh air whether or not there is artificial ventilation; (b) Artificial light shall be provided sufficient for the prisoners to read or work without injury to eyesight.” In relation to access to the open air and physical and recreational training, Rule 21 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners establishes that: (1) Every prisoner who is not employed in outdoor work shall have at least one hour of suitable exercise in the open air daily if the weather permits. (2) Young prisoners, and others of suitable age and physique, shall receive physical and recreational training during the period of exercise. To this end space, installations and equipment should be provided.” See also, Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, supra, para. 135. 528 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 97, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, supra, para. 135. 529 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 97, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, supra, para. 135. 530 Cf. Chorillos Women’s Maximum Security Prison, Report No. 331-97-DIV-EP-MSMCH of August 29, 1997 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 35, folio 3680). 531 The Court notes that the testimony of Klemens Felder described some of the alleged ill-treatment suffered by Ms. J. during her time in the DINCOTE. The Court points out that Mr. Felder, who did not know Ms. J. at the time of her detention, was not a witness to these facts; rather his presumed knowledge of them comes from Ms. J. In addition, the Court reiterates that the documents and statements that described the psychological effects on the presumed victim do not constitute sufficiently relevant indications to prove the occurrence of the said acts (supra para. 314). Cf. Affidavit prepared by the witness Klemens Felder on May 8, 2013 (merits report, folios 1232 and 1234). 111