58 which affects their comprehensive development and the right to a family life. The restriction on personal liberty should not damage the relationship between Mr. Ramírez and his children, which are not subject to the conviction; and b) pursuant to Article 9(3) of the Convention on Children’s Rights, both parents can maintain personal relationships with their children in a regular manner. Arguments of the State 113. It did not refer to Articles 5 and 17 of the American Convention. Considerations of the Court 114. Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention state: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 115. Article 17(1) of the American Convention states: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state. 116. This Court has established that the applicants can invoke rights different to those included in the Commission’s application, abiding to the facts included in the application.97 117. The jurisprudence of this Tribunal, as well as other international courts and authorities, has emphasized that there is a universal prohibition to submit a person to torture or other cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment that violates peremptory norms of international law (ius cogens).98 118. Regarding the imprisonment conditions, the Court has specified that, pursuant to Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, everybody who is imprisoned has the right to live in a situation of detention compatible with their personal dignity, which must be guaranteed by the State since it is in a special position of guarantor with regard to said persons, because the penitentiary authorities exercise total control over these.99 Specifically, the Tribunal has considered that the detention in 97 Cfr. Case of “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 8, para. 125; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 90, para. 179; and Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 90, para. 142. 98 Cfr. Case of Caesar, supra note 3, para. 70; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 97, para. 112; and Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003, Series C No. 103, para. 92. 99 Cfr. Case of Caesar, supra note 3, para. 97; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 3, para. 102; and Case of Tibi, supra note 9, para. 150.