46 persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 203. Concerning the rights protected under articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, the Commission is reminded that the American Convention prohibits the use of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment against any person, irrespective of the circumstances. The Inter-American Court has held that the injuries, suffering, afflictions or harm sustained by an individual while he is deprived of liberty may become a form of cruel punishment when, owing to the circumstances of his imprisonment, there is a deterioration in his physical, 160 mental and moral integrity, which is strictly prohibited by Article 5(2) of the Convention. 204. In the instant case, the petitioner alleges that although he was detained on October 16, 1994, his wife was unable to visit him until October 18, 1994 and, during his 31 days in detention, the only other visits he received were from the Attorney General of the Nation on October 26, 1994, and from two representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross on November 9, 1994. He states that although members of the Human Rights Commission of the Democratic Constituent Congress traveled to the city of Huánuco on two separate occasions, they were not allowed to see him by order of the head of the Military-Political Command, who was the officer in command of the military base where he was being held. He also states that initially, the International Committee of the Red Cross was not permitted to visit Mr. Galindo and that the requests that the President of the Huánuco Superior Court made of the head of the Military-Political Command and of the Chief Superior Prosecutor of Huánuco seeking information concerning his circumstances went unanswered. 205. The State, for its part, contends that as is evident from the petitioner’s own allegations, as a detainee Mr. Galindo received visits from his sister and wife, from the Attorney General’s Office, and from members of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The State “does not expressly deny” that Mr. Galindo may have been held incommunicado at the start of his detention, as such a measure was allowed under the rules of police investigation in force at the time of his detention. It reports that under Article 13(d) of Decree No. 25475, a detainee could be held temporarily incommunicado for the sake of security and the confidentiality of the investigation. It states that this subparagraph of Article 13 was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court on January 3, 2003. The State alleges that while the case was being processed with the IACHR Mr. Galindo did not present evidence –apart from his own story- of the alleged psychological torture he claims to have suffered. 206. With regard to this last allegation by the State, the Commission recalls that under the case law of the Inter-American Court, “[i]n contrast to domestic criminal law, in proceedings to determine human rights violations the State cannot rely on the defense that the complainant has failed to present evidence when it cannot 161 be obtained without the State's cooperation.” 207. The Commission notes that incommunicado detention is an exceptional measure whose purpose is to prevent any interference in the investigation into the facts and “must be limited to the period of time expressly established by law. Even in that case, the State is obliged to ensure that the detainee enjoys the minimum and non-derogable guarantees established in the Convention and, specifically, the right to question the 162 lawfulness of the detention and the guarantee of access to effective defense during his incarceration.” The Court has also written that holding a detainee incommunicado must be an exceptional measure because such detention causes moral suffering and psychological trauma, making the person vulnerable and increasing the risk 163 164 of abuse in prisons and jails and because it puts strict observance of due process of law in jeopardy. 160 I/A Court H.R., Case of Lori Berenson Mejía. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, paragraph 101. 161 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C No 4, paragraphs 135-136; Case of Godínez Cruz, Judgment of January 20, 1989, Series C No 5, paragraphs 141-142; Case of Neira Alegría et al., Judgment of January 19, 1995, Series C No. 20, paragraph 65. 162 163 I/A Court H.R., Case of Suarez Rosero, Judgment of November 12, 1997, Series C No. 35, Paragraph 51. I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Benavides, Judgment of August 18, 2000, Series C No. 69, paragraph 82; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), Judgment of November 19, 1999, Series C No. 63, Paragraph 164