94 (supra paras. 63 to 80,) the Court shall proceed to analyze the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention. 218. The Court notes that in its complaint, the Commission has not included any arguments regarding the alleged violation of Article 5 of the American Convention, which has been alleged by the representatives. However, in the closing written arguments, the Commission has pointed out that “in light of the acknowledgment of responsibility of the State and the evidence produced throughout the proceeding before the Court, the Commission considers that the State has violated Article 5 of the American Convention regarding Article 1(1) thereof” (supra para. 213(a)). 219. The Court has clearly established in prior cases that the representatives may allege that there have been other violations other than those alleged by the Commission, provided that such legal arguments are limited to the facts (supra paras. 97(1) to 97(140) stated in the complaint.176 a) Regarding the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention to the detriment of Wilson García-Asto. 220. Pursuant to the then applicable laws, during the first year of detention, Wilson García-Asto was subject to solitary confinement conditions, was allowed to go to the prison yard for only half an hour, and a visits were restricted to his next of kin (supra para. 97(54)). 221. Pursuant to Article 5 of the Convention, all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.177 In other instances, the Court has pointed out 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 humane treatment. Furthermore, as responsible for detention centers, the State must secure detainees that the conditions for the respect of their fundamental rights and dignity are met.178 222. The Court has stated that torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment are strictly prohibited by International Human Rights Law. The prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment is absolute and non-revocable, even in difficult circumstances, such as wars, threatened wars, the fight against terrorism and or any other crimes, a state of siege or emergency, civil or 176 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 6, para. 53; Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 1, para. 91; and Case of De la Cruz-Flores, supra note 4, para. 122. 177 Cf. Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 10, para. 95; Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 166, para. 118; and Case of Caesar. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, para. 96. 178 Cf. Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 10, para. 95; Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 166, para. 118; and Case of Caesar, supra note 177, para. 96; In the same regard, cf. UN Standard Minimum Rules for the treatment of detainees, adopted by the First United Nations Congress on Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, held in Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council in Resolutions 663C (XXIV) of July 31, 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of May 13, 1977, Rules 10 and 11.