51 D. Right to have one’s personal integrity respected and to humane treatment (articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof) and the conditions of detention at the Mendoza penitentiary and the transfers from one institution to another 238. The Commission recalls that by virtue of the State’s special position as guarantor, all persons deprived of liberty are to be treated humanely, with unconditional respect for their inherent dignity, fundamental rights and guarantees, and strictly in accordance with international human rights 161 instruments. 239. The conditions at the Mendoza Provincial Penitentiary were described earlier at paragraphs 90-94. The Commission has established that the atmosphere of constant tension and violence caused by the absence of proper mechanisms to control and care for the inmates at that facility posed a danger to the inmates. On several different occasions the Commission got a firsthand look at the subhuman and inhumane conditions in which the prisoners were incarcerated, which are described in the section on proven facts. These were the conditions at the Mendoza Penitentiary at the time that Ricardo David Videla Fernández and Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal were incarcerated there. 240. The petitioners asserted that one of the decisive factors in the death of Ricardo David Videla Fernández were the inhumane and subhuman conditions in which he was being held, which is examined above at xx-xx. They state that during Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal’s incarceration at that facility 162 he sustained severe injuries at the hands of the guards and other inmates. While the Commission does 163 not have specific details about what happened to Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal, the State did not submit any information or specific arguments suggesting that the victims were somehow spared the terrible conditions at the Mendoza Provincial Penitentiary. 241. The Commission therefore concludes that the Argentine State was derelict in its duty to provide the minimum detention conditions befitting human dignity, to the detriment of Ricardo David Videla Fernández and Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal, in violation of articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 242. The petitioners also mentioned the fact that the victims were transferred from one detention facility to another, which had consequences for their schooling and the development of their affective relationships. On this point the State reported that many of the transfers were done at the request of the defense attorneys who asked that the inmates be held in facilities near the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires to facilitate the preparation and activities associated with their defense. As for the alleged victims’ access to education, the State informed the IACHR that Claudio David Núñez and César Alberto Mendoza, both of whom were at the Santa Rosa Penal Colony, La Pampa Province (Unit No. 4 of the Federal Penitentiary Service), were taking courses –each one in different tracks within the educational system-, while Lucas Matías Mendoza had classes in an office adjacent to his place of confinement, taught by various professors, thus enabling him to pursue his regular studies. 243. Under the Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, transfers shall not be carried out for the purpose of punishing, repressing or discriminating 161 IACHR, Resolution 1/08, Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas. Principle 1. 162 The petitioners contend that during his incarceration in the Mendoza prisons, Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal sustained severe injuries. During a prison riot in March, members of the prison staff and Infantry Guard Corps (CGI) fractured his upper jaw and broke his teeth. He also sustained a foot injury caused by a “Tramontine” knife. In November 2007, another inmate stabbed him in the back. He never received any medical attention for that injury. Finally, on March 21, 2007, he was assaulted by another inmate and sustained a fracture to the nasal septum. 163 The Commission only has the petitioners’ version of these allegations. No record of a filed complaint or other evidence was provided, nor were problems obtaining such evidence alleged.