VIII.3 RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY 122 A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 146. The Commission considered it established that Mr. Cortez suffered harm to his personal integrity “in the context of his [first two] detentions,” stating the following: In the first, violent methods were used and he spent the night cold; in the second, he was deprived of sleep, he was sometimes given food that had been spit on, and he was kept in solitary confinement for 19 days. It asserted that the solitary confinement alone was a violation of personal integrity. Taking into account also the lack of judicial review of the solitary confinement, the Commission concluded that, although “it is not possible to determine the details of the mistreatment of [Mr. Cortez],” his right to personal integrity was infringed, in violation of Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1). 123 147. Like the Commission, the representatives asserted that Mr. Cortez’s personal integrity was harmed by his 19-day solitary confinement, by receiving food that had been spit on, and by the sleep deprivation he suffered during the detention that began on July 11, 1997. They considered these acts cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. 124 They added that Mr. Cortez did not have visitation arrangements. 148. The representatives also asserted that Mr. Cortez’s personal integrity was harmed by “[t]he series of human rights violations” against him. 125 They noted that the physical and psychological harm to Mr. Cortez persisted over time, as the case against him was not closed until 2009. They added that Mr. Cortez was harmed financially and emotionally by “all the suffering he experienced.” They said that “the detention,” “double investigation,” and “unnecessarily protracted judicial proceedings against him” affected “[Mr.] Cortez’s life plans.” They stated that because the alleged victim lost the job he had at the time of his detention and he had a criminal record until 2012, “it was impossible for him to find a good, stable job, which caused additional ongoing suffering in his life.” 149. The representatives asked that the State be declared internationally responsible for violating Article 5 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1), to the detriment of Mr. Cortez. 150. The State argued that “there are no reasonable grounds for deducing that Article 5 of the Convention has been violated [...] to the detriment of Mr. Cortez.” It noted that while Mr. Cortez was detained in military facilities, “he had access to comfortable lodgings with all basic services provided, where he received food and visits from relatives and attorneys, as well as Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights. The Commission did not make a determination on whether the mistreatment constituted torture or any other type of cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. 124 However, in their pleadings and motions brief, in the conclusion regarding alleged violations of the right to personal integrity, they mentioned only Article 5 of the Convention, without expressly noting paragraph 2 of that Article and without specifying which parts of that article they believed had been violated. Furthermore, in their final written arguments, the representatives added that the treatment of Mr. Cortez during his second detention, which began on July 11, 1997, was “torture.” 125 That series included: the July 11, 1997, detention, which included 19 days of solitary confinement; the preventive deprivation of liberty from July 30, 1997, to December 19, 1997; the ongoing criminal proceedings in violation of the presumption of innocence, after which the prosecutor requested dismissal on November 23, 1998; the alleged “double investigation for the same events,” in reference to the proceedings in ordinary courts beginning in 2000; the deprivation of liberty in that year in violation of several rights; and the transfers to various detention centers under duress. 122 123 32