to his physical and mental state165 after having been tortured on May 27, 1998, and in June 2001, after his second recapture. Therefore, the Court considers that the lack of adequate medical care constitutes a violation of Article 5 of the Convention. 205. Finally, the representatives argued that the State also violated the alleged victim's right to humane treatment by subjecting him to death row. This Court has had the opportunity to rule on the so-called “death row phenomenon” in the case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago and in the case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. The Court notes that, in these cases, an assessment was made of the expert opinions provided regarding the specific detention conditions of the persons sentenced to death and victims of the case, as well as the specific impact on them, which led to a violation of articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to article 1(1) thereof. 166 Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights,167 the Universal Human Rights System168 and some national courts169 warn that the so-called “death row” affects the right to humane treatment due to the anguish in which the people sentenced to death find themselves, a situation that generates psychological trauma due to the present and growing specter of the execution of the maximum sentence,170 therefore, it is considered cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Thus, to determine the existence of a violation of humane treatment derived from "death row", it is necessary to analyze particular personal circumstances of the case in order to assess whether remaining in this state became so grave/serious as to be qualified as cruel, inhuman or degrading.171 206. The Court notes that Mr. Valenzuela remained for 6 years and 2 months under constant threat that he could be executed at any moment. As a result of this conviction, Mr. Valenzuela had to contemplate the prospect of the extinction of his life 172 during that time. The Court also highlights that the manner in which a death sentence is imposed may constitute a factor that determines its incompatibility with the provisions of Article 5 of the American Convention. 173 The Court notes that Mr. Valenzuela was sentenced to death in the context of criminal Document Ref. C-698-98. Of No.2. of Mr. Valenzuela's defense attorney before the Judge of First Instance for Criminal, Drug-Trafficking and Environmental Crime on July 11, 2001 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 7, fs. 123 and 124); Decision No. 300-2001; Of. 6, of the Second Execution Court of May 7, 2003 (proceedings file before the Commission, annex 2, f. 1296), and Letter from the social worker ALLS addressed to the Judge of the Second Execution Court of May 13, 2003 (file of proceedings before the Commission, annex 2, f. 1306). 166 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, paras. 167 to 172, and Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, paras. 97 to 102. 167 ECHR. Öcalan v. Turkey [GS], no. 46221/99, Judgment of May 12, 2005, paras. 166-169, and Bader and Kanbor v. Swedish, no. 13284/04, Judgment of November 8, 2005, paras. 42 to 48. 168 Cf. United Nations. Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, A/67/279, (2012), para. 42. The phenomenon of death row is defined as: “It consists of a combination of circumstances that produce severe mental trauma and physical deterioration in prisoners under sentence of death. Those circumstances include the lengthy and anxiety-ridden wait for uncertain outcomes, isolation, drastically reduced human contact and even the physical conditions in which some inmates are held. Death row conditions are often worse than those for the rest of the prison population, and prisoners on death row are denied many basic human necessities […]”. See also, Human Rights Committee, Larrañaga vs. Philippines, CCPR/C/87/D/1421/2005 (2006), para. 7(1)1, and Mwamba v. Zambia, CCPR/C/98/D/1520/2006 (2010), para. 6.8. 169 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe of 24 June 1993 in Catholic Commissioner for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe v. Attorney General (4) SA 239 (ZS); Supreme Court of Uganda in Attorney General v. Susan Kigula and 417 others (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2006), 2009, and Godfrey Mutiso v. Republic, Kenya Court of Appeal (2010). See also U.S. v. Burns, Supreme Court of Canada, 2001 SCC 7, paras. 118-123. 170 Cf. ECHR. Soering v. The United Kingdom, no. 14038/88, Judgment of July 7, 1989, paras. 56, 81 and 111. 171 Cf. ECHR, Case of Ireland v. the United Kingdom, no. 5310/71, Judgment of January 18, 1978, para. 162; Case of Jalloh v. Germany [GS], no. 54810/00, Judgment of July 11, 2006, para. 67 and Case of Bouyid v. Belgium [GS], no. 23380/09/03, Judgment of September 28, 2015, para. 86. 172 Cf. Psychological expert opinion rendered by Juan Cristóbal Aldana Alfaro, supra. 173 Cf. ECHR, Soering v. United Kingdom, supra, para. 106, and Shamayev et al. v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, April 12, 2005, para. 333. 165 50