that may not be restricted under any circumstances, or those whose restriction is not a necessary consequence of their deprivation of liberty.” 28 34. Therefore, with regard to the maintenance work on basic services in the Yanamayo prison, the State must take into account that “that the poor physical and sanitary conditions in prisons […] may themselves be violations of Article 5 of the American Convention, depending on their intensity, duration and the personal characteristics of those who suffer them, since they can cause hardship of an intensity that exceeds the inevitable level of suffering inherent to imprisonment, and because they involve feelings of humiliation and inferiority.”29 In particular, the Court recalls that “every person deprived of liberty must have access to potable water for drinking and water for personal hygiene; the lack of a potable water supply constitutes a serious failure by the State in its duty to provide guarantees to persons in its custody.”30 35. Regarding Mrs. Berenson’s current situation, the Court notes that the State reported that on November 5, 2010, “and after a home inspection by DIRCOTE, the [First Supranational Criminal] Court [of Lima] decide [d …] to declare admissible the request for the benefit of conditional release from prison (parole) for Lori Helene Berenson Mejía, under certain rules of conduct and order[ed] her immediate release.”31 This decision was ratified by the National Criminal Court on January 18, 2011.32 36. The Court is cognizant of the measures adopted to date by the State to adapt the prison conditions of the inmates at the Yanamayo prison. Moreover, the Court notes that “EP Yanamayo was repopulated with inmates imprisoned for common crimes from […] nearby areas,” and inmates sentenced for terrorism “were transferred to other prisons in the country.”33 37. Finally, the Court notes that the parties did not present specific observations to the information provided by the State, for which reason this Court proceeds to conclude the monitoring of compliance with this measure of reparation. The Court points out that while some aspects of the detention conditions at the Yanamayo prison have not been analyzed in the context of this Order, this does not prevent their future analysis in the context of other contentious cases. THEREFORE: 28 Cf. Case of the “Instituto de Reeducación del Menor” (Juvenile Reeducation Center) v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 153, and Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras, Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 241, para. 64. 29 Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 97. 30 Pacheco Teruel, para. 67 31 Decision of the First Supra-provincial Criminal Court of Lima, of November 5, 2010 (File on Monitoring Compliance, Volume IV, pages 1310 to 1340). 32 Decision of the National Criminal Court of January 11, 2011 (file on monitoring compliance, Volume IV, pages 1341 to 1351). 33 1277). Order No. 241-2011-IMPE/14 of April 25, 2011 (case file of monitoring of compliance, Volume IV, page 9