29 93. The Court has declared this law to be incompatible with Article 5 of the American Convention. Once the Convention entered into force for Trinidad and Tobago, the State should have adapted its legislation to the obligations set forth in that treaty, as to ensure the most effective protection of the human rights enumerated therein. It should be reaffirmed that, pursuant to Article 2 of the Convention, the duty to adapt domestic legislation is by its very nature one of results and, therefore, the denunciation of the Convention cannot extinguish the State’s international obligations assumed while the treaty was in force. Such obligations have an autonomous and automatic character and do not depend upon an actual ruling of the Convention’s organs of supervision regarding a specific domestic law. 94. Having declared the incompatibility of the Corporal Punishment Act with the Convention, the Court finds that, by its failure to abrogate this law following its ratification of the Convention, the State did not comply with its obligations under Article 2, in relation to Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention. * On whether Mr. Caesar’s conditions of detention constitute a violation of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention. 95. The Commission argued that the State is responsible for further violations of Mr. Caesar’s right to humane treatment under Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention due to the conditions in which he has been detained. The Commission submitted that, owing to these conditions of detention, the State has failed to meet domestic and international standards in its treatment of Mr. Caesar. Furthermore, the Commission argued that the impact of these conditions has been aggravated by the prolonged periods of time during which Mr. Caesar has been incarcerated in connection with his criminal proceedings. 96. In this regard, the Court has held that, in accordance with Article 5(1) and (2) of the Convention, […] all persons deprived of their liberty have the right to detention conditions that are compatible with their human dignity. On other occasions, the Court has indicated that detention in conditions of overcrowding, with lack of ventilation and natural light, without a bed for rest and adequate sanitary conditions, in isolation or with undue restrictions upon the visiting schedule, constitute a violation of the right to humane treatment. 37 97. In addressing the issue of prison conditions, the Court has taken note of other international instruments, as well as the case law of other international human rights institutions. Recently, the Court has held that the State is placed in a special position of guarantor in relation to persons deprived of their freedom, since penitentiary authorities have full control over the persons subjected to their custody.38 In this 37 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía, supra note 10, para. 102; Case of Tibi, supra note 16, para. 150; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, Judgment of September 2, 2004, Series C No. 112, para. 151. See also United Nations Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955, and approved by the E.S.C. res. 663 C (XXIV) of July 31, 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of May 13, 1977, Rules 10 and 11. 38 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 16, para. 129; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 37, para. 152; and Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 28, para. 98.