29 poor. They had very limited access to the very modest health services that the prison offered. Accused inmates were not segregated from convicted inmates. 85. In building its case law, the Inter-American Court has developed a number of standards regarding detention conditions that constitute violations of articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention. It has established that the concurrence of certain circumstances may constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, as for example: 75 the lack of adequate infrastructure to house the persons detained; confinement in overcrowded conditions; confinement in a cell with no ventilation or natural lighting; confinement in unhealthy cells, without proper medical attention, without inmate segregation (as between adults and children, or between convicted and accused inmates); without adequate sanitary services; with meager food of poor quality; with few opportunities for exercise; with no educational or sports programs; or with very little opportunity to engage in educational or work-related activities; with periodic use of collective forms of punishment, and a lack of privacy in sleeping quarters. 86. During the processing of the present case, it has been documented that inmates in Cellblock 19, all of whom were classified as members of the “mara salvatrucha” were segregated from the rest of the prison population and did not have access to programs for study, training or work, except the programs offered by the churches that conducted programs within the prison. This is yet another point that the State does not refute and there is nothing in the case record to disprove the petitioners’ allegations. Therefore, the Commission considers that the victims in the present case did not have effective access to activities that would enable their reform and social readaptation. 87. On this point, the Commission observes that Article 5(6) of the American Convention, a provision that is unique in both scope and content, makes reform and social readaptation of the prisoner the driving principle for enforcement of sentences involving deprivation of liberty. The fundamental goal is to prepare them to rejoin society, which means that sentences of incarceration must focus on ensuring that persons sentenced to prison are willing and able to conduct themselves as law-abiding members of society. 88. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners provide the following: The purpose and justification of a sentence of imprisonment or a similar measure deprivative of liberty is ultimately to protect society against crime. This end can only be achieved if the period of imprisonment is used to ensure, so far as possible, that upon his return to society the offender is not only willing but able to lead a law-abiding and self-supporting life. (Rule 58). 75 I/A Court H.R., Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Judgment of 1 September 7, 1997. Series C No. 33, paragraph 89; I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, paragraph 85; I/A Court H.R., Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, paragraph 76.b; I/A Court H.R., Case of Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 123, paragraph 99; I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paragraph 151; I/A Court H.R., Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, paragraph 91; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, paragraphs 165-171; I/A Court H.R., Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, paragraphs 54.55, 54.56 and 54.57; I/A Court H.R., Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, paragraph 43.23; I/A Court H.R., Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137 Paragraphs 97.55, 97.56 and 97.57; I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, paragraphs 54.48 and 108; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paragraphs 296 and 297; I/A Court H.R., Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia). Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, paragraphs 90-99 and 104. .