42 accountability of govenment officers in theory as well as in practice.138 Furthermore, said Court has stated that the assessment on the use of force which involved use of firearms must be made taking into account all the circumstances and factual backdrop, including the planification and control of the facts under scrutiny.139 83. Summing up, any deficiency or fault in the investigation affecting the ability to determine the cause of death or to identify the actual perpetrators or masterminds of the crime will constitute failure to comply with the obligation to protect the right to life.140 84. The Court points out that in the instant case, significant omissions were made in the investigation proceedings initiated by the goverment authoritites, due to the lack of cooperation of police forces and jail authorities in the collection and custody of vital evidence (supra paras. 60(30) to 60(36).) Said omissions are so significant that Venezuela has stated that the prosecution of the investigation involved in this case is "impossible from the practical point of view”, which is contrary to the obligations arising out of the Convention. B) Detention conditions at the Detention Center of Catia. 85. Section 5 of the Convention declares one of the fundamental values of a democratic society: the right to humane treatment, according to which: “Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected,” and torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment are expressly prohibited. As regards to persons deprived of their liberty, Article 5.2 of the Convention provides that they shall be treated regarding for the inherent dignity of the human person. Under Article 27(2) of the Convention, said right is part of the inalienable human rights, since it has been provided it cannot be suspended in case of war, public hazard or other threats to the independence or security of the State Parties.141 In this sense, the States cannot invoke economic hardships to justify imprisonment conditions that do not respect the inherent dignity of human beings.142 86. Deprivation of liberty generally causes, as its unavoidable consequence, the impairment of other human rights, besides the right to personal liberty. However, said impairment of rights arising from the deprivation of liberty or as its collateral effect, must be strictly minimized.143 Furthermore, the State must ensure that the 138 Cf. ECHR, Case of Isayeva v. Russia, supra note 137, para. 214; ECHR, Case of Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria. Application nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, para. 119; ECHR, Case of McKerr v. the United Kingdom. Judgment of 4 May 2001. Application No. 28883/95, para. 115. 139 Cf. ECHR, Case of Erdogan and Others v. Turkey. supra note 129, para. 68; ECHR, Case of Makaratzis v. Greece. Judgment of 20 December 2004. Application No. 50385/99, para. 59; ECHR, Case of McCann and Others v. United Kingdom. supra note 129, para. 150. 140 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 3, para. 97; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 144,and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 7, para. 219. 141 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 119. 142 Cf. ECHR, Case of I.I v Bulgaria. Judgment of 9 June 2005. Application No. 44082/98, para. 77; ECHR, Case of Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine. Judgment of 29 April 2003. Application No. 38812/97, para. 148. 143 Cf. Case of López Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 105; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 127, para. 154, and Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 116