regularly taking advantage of the outdoor facilities.” 126 Ecuador also added that the Commission itself, in its Merits Report, noted that it was not possible to establish the details of the alleged mistreatment, and that on July 14, 1997, a medical certificate was issued declaring that Mr. Cortez showed no “signs of trauma” on his body. B. Considerations of the Court 151. The Court has explained that the violation of the right to physical and psychological integrity “has several gradations,” ranging from “torture to other types of humiliation or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment with varying degrees of physical and psychological effects.” 127 152. Furthermore, with respect to deprivations of liberty, the Court has stated that “any use of force that is not strictly necessary to ensure proper behavior on the part of the detainee constitutes an assault on the dignity of the person in violation of Article 5 of the American Convention.” 128 Similarly, “incommunicado detention is considered to be an exceptional instrument,” due to the vulnerability it causes for the detained person and the fact that it can cause anyone in that situation “moral and psychological suffering.” 129 Prolonged isolation and solitary confinement constitute, in themselves, forms of cruel and inhuman treatment. 130 153. During his first unlawful detention, Mr. Cortez remained in solitary confinement from the time when he was detained on January 21, 1997, until his release the next day. He stated that he was taken into custody violently and that he suffered cold during the night. During his second detention, he was in solitary confinement for 17 or 19 days. He stated that he was deprived of sleep, received food that had been spit on, and was beaten 131 (supra para. 54). Referring to this period, Mr. Cortez declared in the public hearing (supra para. 9) that: “the first three days [of solitary confinement] they would take me out of my cell at six in the morning and return me to the cell at nine at night. [T]hose three days, I did not eat food or drink water, I was in solitary confinement, [...] and I was mistreated, [...] they laid me down on a bed and hit me with socks, which they said were filled with sand. The second day, a member of military intelligence said [to calm down], [that] this hurts inside but doesn’t leave any marks.” The expert witness Bermúdez Aguinaga noted that Mr. Cortez showed symptoms 126 The State argued that when Mr. Cortez gave his initial formal statement, and in subsequent briefs, he did not mention having been mistreated at military installations. Ecuador noted that in a communication on August 11, 1997, Mr. Cortez even requested to be kept at the air base rather than being transferred to another detention center. 127 Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 57 and Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of October 1, 2021. Series C No. 439, para. 94. 128 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, supra, para. 57 and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 198. 129 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador, supra, para. 90 and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs, supra, para. 171. 130 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 156, and Case of Pollo Rivera et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of October 21, 2016. Series C No. 319, para. 159. Cf. also Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 103. The Court has had occasion to hear circumstances which it declared to be in violation of Article 5(2) of the Convention for the solitary confinement of detained individuals for eight days, as well as for longer periods of time (cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador, supra, para. 91, and Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, paragraphs 81–83). 131 The Court observes that the State, in its final written arguments, noted that Mr. Cortez mentioned in the public hearing having “been beaten with socks filled with sand.” The State stresses that because the above is not referenced in the circumstances discussed in the Merits Report, by virtue of the procedural principle of estoppel, it is not part of the factual framework of the case. The Court sees Mr. Cortez’s statement about having been beaten as complementary to the description of events in the Merits Report. The Court also points out that the above is independent of its conclusion regarding the violation of Article 5(2) of the Convention. 33