establishes that “the separation of accused persons from convicted persons, requires not only keeping them in different cells, but also that these cells be located in different sections within a detention center, or in different institutions if that is possible.”147 144. The Court has noted that the guarantee set out in Article 5(4) can be understood as a “corollary of the right of the person who is being prosecuted to the presumption of innocence until his or her guilt has been established legally, which is recognized in Article 8(2) of the Convention,”148 since placing a person being prosecuted with those convicted implies giving the former a treatment corresponding to those whose criminal responsibility has been legally determined. While Article 8(2) of the Convention was not alleged by the parties or the Commission, the Court considers it pertinent to take into account, on the basis of the principle of iura novit curia.149 145. The Court has explained that a violation of the right to personal integrity can have a distinct gradation and can be produced by the commission of different types of harassment, which range from torture to other kinds of acts or treatments that may be cruel, inhuman or degrading. Torture and the other types of illtreatment are prohibited by Article 5(2) of the American Convention.150 146. The Court has also held that the general obligations arising from Article 5 of the American Convention are “reinforced by the specific obligations” that can be found in the Inter-American Torture Convention. Articles 1 and 6 of that treaty reinforce the absolute prohibition of torture and the obligation of the State to prevent and punish all acts or attempts of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment within its jurisdiction.151 Article 8 of the Inter-American Torture Convention, for its part, refers to the duty to examine complaints of torture, as well as the duty to investigate and initiate criminal proceedings when presented with such complaints or with the grounds to believe that acts of torture have been committed. B.2 Analysis of the facts of the case 147. Failure to separate the persons being prosecuted and those convicted. - It should be noted that the State has not disputed the claim of the representatives and the Commission that, in the National Penitentiary, the alleged victims were housed with convicted prisoners. This was confirmed by the expert Víctor Manuel Velazco Prieto, who Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, paras. 146 and 147 and Case of Mota Abarullo et al. v. Venezuela, para. 96. 147 148 Case of J. v. Peru, para. 380. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 163 and Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 423, para. 110. The principle alluded to allows the Court “to analyze the possible violation of the norms of the Convention that have not been alleged, provided that the parties have had the opportunity to express their respective positions in relation to the facts on which they are based” (Case of the Indigenous Community of the Lhaka Honhat Association (Our Land) v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2020. Series C No. 400, para. 200). 149 150 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, paras. 57 and 58 and Case of Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela, para. 112. Article 5(2) was not expressly invoked by the parties or by the Commission, but the Court believed that it should apply iura novit curia (supra footnote on page 149). 151 114. Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, para. 143 and Case Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela, para. 38