34 81. The file of the proceeding before this Court reveals that Mr. CantoralBenavides was held incommunicado for the first eight days of his detention (supra para. 63.e). 82. Under international human rights law it has been established that people are to be held incommunicado during detention only in exceptional situations, and that to do so may constitute an act contrary to human dignity. 83. Dating back to its earliest judgments, this Court has established that Prolonged isolation and being held incommunicado constitute, in themselves, forms of cruel and inhuman treatment, harmful to the mental and moral integrity of the person and to the right of all detainees of respect for the inherent dignity of the human being.42 84. In the Suárez-Rosero case (1997), the Court spoke out again on holding a person incommunicado, stating that same can only be decreed as an exceptional measure, since it can cause the detainee to suffer extreme psychological and moral injury. The Court has said that [O]ne of the reasons why holding a person incommunicado is viewed as an exceptional instrument is because of the serious impact it has on the detainee. Isolation from the outside world causes any person to suffer moral and psychological trauma, making him/her particularly vulnerable and increasing the risk of aggression and arbitrariness in jails.43 85. As regards prison conditions, the Court accepts as proven the fact that Mr. Cantoral-Benavides was held in strict isolation for one year, in a crowded cell with other prisoners, without ventilation or natural light, and that he was permitted to receive few visitors (supra para. 63.k). Also, the evidence presented clearly reveals that the medical attention given to the victim was very deficient (supra para. 63.g). Also, it has been established in this same judgment that 20 days after being incarcerated, when he had not yet been tried, much less convicted, Mr. CantoralBenavides was paraded before the media, dressed in defamatory clothes, along with other prisoners, as the perpetrator of the crime of treason against the fatherland (supra para. 63.i). 86. The United Nations Human Rights Committee (hereinafter the “Human Rights Committee”) has held that the detention of a prisoner with other persons, in conditions that pose a threat to his/her health, constitutes a violation of Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.44 87. The Inter-American Court has stated that all persons detained have the right to live in prison conditions that are in keeping with personal dignity, and the State must guarantee their right to life and personal integrity. 42 cfr. Fairén-Garbi and Solís-Corrales Case, supra note 10, para. 149; Godínez- Cruz Case, supra note 10, para. 164; and Velázquez-Rodríguez Case, supra note 10, para. 156. 43 44 Suárez-Rosero Case, supra note 10, para. 90. cfr. United Nations. Human Rights Committee. Moriana Hernández Valentini de Bazzano v. Uruguay, No. 5/1997, of August 15, 1979, paras. 9 and 10.