38 179. The IACHR has established that the acts of violence against Gladys Carol Espinoza were perpetrated deliberately, with the aim of humiliating her, reducing her physical and mental resistance, and obtaining information on her alleged involvement in illicit activities. It has also been established that the perpetrators of those acts inflicted intense suffering on the victim, who subsequently developed a range of physical and mental aftereffects. In addition, the continuous acts of violence at the premises of the DIVISE and the DINCOTE caused her to suffer from suffocation, fainting, convulsions, loss of consciousness, an inability to feel pain, temporal and spatial disorientation, and such anxiety that she 167 begged her assailants to kill her. Those elements are enough to conclude that the acts perpetrated by agents of the DIVISE and the DINCOTE between April and May 1993 constitute torture in the terms of Article 5.2 of the American Convention and the article of the IACPPT. 180. In connection with the incommunicado detention in which Gladys Carol Espinoza was held for several days while in police custody in accordance with the terms of Article 12.d of Decree Law No. 25475, in force at the time, the Inter-American Court has ruled that “prolonged isolation and compulsory incommunicado are, in themselves, cruel and inhuman treatment, which harm the physical and moral integrity of the individual and the right to respect for the inherent dignity of the human 168 person.” 181. As will be seen below, in spite of complaints regarding the ongoing torture of Gladys Carol Espinoza lodged by the victim’s next-of-kin and the APRODEH organization on April 26 and 28, 1993, respectively, the Peruvian State ordered no criminal investigation to cast light on the facts and punish those responsible. 182. On account of all the foregoing, the Peruvian State failed to uphold, with respect to Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzales, the obligations of respecting and ensuring the rights enshrined in Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, and it also violated the provisions of Articles 1 and 6 of the IACPPT. Detention conditions and acts of violence at Yanamayo Prison 183. As has been established, Gladys Carol Espinoza served part of her sentence for the crime of treason against the fatherland while the terms of Article 20 of Decree Law No. 25475 and Article 3 of Decree Law No. 25744 were still in effect. Those provisions ordered continuous solitary confinement during the first year of detention, a permanent maximum-security regime throughout the prison term, access to the open air for a period of thirty minutes a day, and a series of restrictions on visits. Far from complying with the goal of social readaptation set for imprisonment by Article 5.6 of the Convention, that regime, in conjunction with the general detention conditions, violated the human dignity of persons serving sentences for terrorism or treason against the fatherland. On this point, the Inter-American Court has ruled that the penal regime established by Decree Laws Nos. 25475 and 25744 constituted cruel, 169 inhuman, and degrading treatment. 184. It has been established that not only was the regime provided for in those decree laws applied with respect to Gladys Carol Espinoza, but that she also was subjected to severe detention conditions at Yanamayo Prison, in an inhospitable and excessively cold room, with limited access to natural light, and without either adequate food or appropriate medical attention. The IACHR has further established that on August 5, 1999, agents of the Peruvian National Police’s National Special Operations 167 Annex 18: Medical Examiner’s Certificate No. 003821-V, issued by the Legal Medicine Institute after examining Gladys Carol Espinoza on January 27 and February 9, 2004, pp. 2 to 5. 168 I/A Court H. R., Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, Judgment of November 25, 2004, Series C No. 119, para. 103, citing: Case of Maritza Urrutia, Judgment of November 27, 2003, Series C No. 103, para. 87; Bámaca Velásquez Case, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of February 22, 2002, Series C No. 91, para. 150; and Cantoral Benavides Case, Judgment of August 18, 2000, Series C No. 69, para. 83. 169 I/A Court H. R., Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, Judgment of November 25, 2005, Series C No. 137, paras. 229 and 233; and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, Judgment of November 25, 2004, Series C No. 119, para. 108.