42 the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for her human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject her to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, her health and well-being are 179 adequately secured […] . 199. On this specific point, the Inter-American Court has maintained that detention conditions where prison facilities are overcrowded, inmates are subject to isolation in a small cell, with no ventilation or natural light, without beds for resting and without adequate hygiene, and suffering lack of communication or restrictions to visits, constitute a violation to 180 humane treatment. 200. The Court wrote the following concerning isolation of detained persons: prolonged isolation and deprivation of communication are in themselves cruel and inhuman treatment, harmful to the psychological and moral integrity of the person and a violation of the right of any detainee to respect for his inherent dignity as a human being. Such treatment, therefore, 181 violates Article 5 of the Convention, which recognizes the right to the integrity of the person … . 201. The United Nations Committee against Torture observed the following with respect to the situation of persons undergoing deportation: [a] deportation […] effected under an administrative procedure […] without the intervention of a judicial authority and without any possibility for the [detainee] to contact his family or his lawyer […] meant that a detainee's rights had not been respected and [he] had [been] placed in a situation 182 where he was particularly vulnerable to possible abuse. 202. The petitioners asserted that the victims had suffered degrading and inhumane treatment in the form of the discrimination they endured, the confiscation and destruction of their identification documents, and by being driven from their homes and expelled from Dominican territory. The State did not present any rebuttal arguments that went specifically to this point. 203. For a proper analysis, the situation of the victims and that of their family members will be addressed separately. 1. Analysis of the direct victims 204. The Commission has established that the victims in this case were unlawfully and arbitrarily arrested and that while in custody they received no food, water or medical attention. Specifically, the Commission observes that Benito Tide Méndez was beaten by State agents; the Medina Ferreras family was forced to walk approximately two kilometers and was held in custody in a place that had no toilets and was in filthy condition; the Fils-Aime family was forced to ford a river at night, and Mrs. Nolasco and her daughters were kept aboard a truck for two or three days. The Commission 179 ECHR, Case of Mcglinchey and Others v. The United Kingdom. Judgment of April 29, 2003, paragraph 46. 180 I/A Court H.R. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, paragraph 221; Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, paragraph 95; Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, paragraph 118. See also, UN, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by the First United Nations Conference on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Geneva in 1955 and approved by the Economic and Social Council in its resolutions 663C (XXIV) of July 31, 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of May 13, 1977, Rules 10 and 11. 181 I/A Court H.R. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paragraph 156. 182 UN, Committee against Torture, Josu Arkauz Arana v. France, Communication No. 63/1997, November 9, 1999, paragraph 11.5.