59 conditions of overcrowding, with lack of ventilation and natural light, without a bed to lie in or adequate conditions of hygiene, in isolation and with lack of communication or with unjustified restrictions to the regime of visits, is a violation of personal integrity.100 119. In the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers relevant the fact that Mr. Fermín Ramírez was convicted to the death penalty for committing a crime he was not accused of, at the end of a process in which his judicial guarantees were violated; that the grounds for the conviction was a provision whose content is contrary to the American Convention; and that he has been submitted to grave conditions in his imprisonment, both in Sector 11 of the Center for Preventive Detention of Zone 18, and in the High Security Center of Escuintla, which can be embodied in a general context of serious prison deficiencies, pointed out by international organizations.101 Based on all the above, the Court considers that the State violated Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, in relation with Article 1(1) of the same. 120. Lastly, the representatives argued that the next of kin of Mr. Fermín Ramírez have faced serious psychological suffering from the anguish of knowing that he is on death row, which would imply a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in detriment of said next of kin. Even when the irregular death penalty can bring very painful consequences for the next of kin of the convicted party, who witness the impact of the conviction on the inmate and face social stigmatization, the Court considers that in the present case it has not been proven that the next of kin of Mr. Fermín Ramírez have been the victims of a violation to Article 5 of the Convention. * * * 121. Finally, this Tribunal considers that the facts argued in the present case do not fall under Article 17 of the Convention, taking into account that the infringement upon family life was not produced as the result of a specific action or omission of the State with that purpose, instead it was a consequence of the process followed for the crime charged, with its characteristics, and the behavior of the accused party himself. Therefore, the Court will not issue a ruling on this matter. XII REPARATIONS APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) 100 Cfr. Case of Caesar, supra note 3, para. 96; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 3, para. 102; and Case of Tibi, supra note 9, para 150. See also Minimum rules for the treatment of inmates, adopted by the First Congress of the United Nations on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of the Criminal, held in Geneva in 1955 and approved by the E.S.C. res. 663C (XXIV) on July 31, 1957 and amended 2076 (LXII) on May 13, 1977, Rules 10 and 11. 101 Cfr. Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, Fifth Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Guatemala, April 6, 2001, Chapter VIII; and MINUGUA, Verification Report, The Penitentiary Situation in Guatemala, April 2000.