necessary supervision to communicate with their family and reputable friends at regular intervals, both by correspondence and by receiving visits.” Moreover, rule 79 recognizes that “special attention shall be paid to the maintenance and improvement of […] relations between a prisoner and his family.”398 Similarly, Principle XVIII of the Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas recognizes the right of such persons “to maintain direct and personal contact through regular visits with members of their family, […] especially their parents, sons and daughters, and their respective partners.”399 406. The State occupies a special position of guarantor with regard to persons deprived of liberty, because the prison authorities exercise a strong or special control over those who are in their custody.400 Thus, there is a special relationship and interaction of subjection between the individual deprived of liberty and the State, characterized by the particular intensity with which the State can regulate his rights and obligations, and by the circumstances inherent in imprisonment, where the inmate is impeded from satisfying a series of basic needs that are essential for the development of a decent life for himself.401 407. The visits by family members to individuals deprived of liberty is an essential element of the right to the protection of the family both of the person deprived of liberty and for the family members, not only because it represents an opportunity for contact with the outside world, but also because the support of the family members for those deprived of liberty while they serve their sentence is fundamental in many aspects, ranging from affective and emotional support to financial support. Therefore, based on the provisions of Articles 17(1) and 1(1) of the American Convention, States, as guarantors of the rights of individuals in their custody, have the obligation to adopt the most appropriate measures to facilitate and to implement contact between the individuals deprived of liberty and their families. 408. The Court emphasizes that one of the difficulties in keeping up relationships between those deprived of liberty and their family members may be their confinement in prisons that are very far from their homes, or of difficult access because the geographical conditions and communication routes make it very expensive and complicated for members of the family to make frequent visits, which could eventually result in a violation of both the right to protection of the family and other rights, such as the right to personal integrity, depending on the particularities of each case. Therefore, State must, insofar as possible, facilitate the transfer of prisoners to prisons nearer to the place where their family lives. In the case of indigenous people deprived of liberty, the adoption of this measure is especially important given the significance of the ties that these individuals have with their place of origin or their community. 409. Consequently, it is clear that, by confining Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe in a prison that was very far from his family home and arbitrarily denying the repeated requests to transfer him to a prison that was nearer, to which the Prison Service had agreed (supra para. 403), the State violated the right to protection of the family. 398 Cf. Standard 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 Economic and Social Council by its resolutions 663C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977. Available at: https://www.unodc.org/pdf/criminal_justice/UN_Standard_Minimum_Rules_for_the_Treatment_of_Prisoners.pdf 399 Cf. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas Resolution 1/08, approved during its 131st regular period of sessions, held from March 3 to 14, 2008. Available at: http://www.cidh.org/Basicos/English/Basic21.a.Principles%20and%20Best%20Practices%20PDL.htm 400 Cf. Case of the “Children’s Rehabilitation Institute” v. Paraguay, para. 152, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, para. 188. 401 Cf. Case of the “Children’s Rehabilitation Institute” v. Paraguay, para. 152, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, para. 188. 135