a) Overcrowding is, in itself, a violation of personal integrity;61 in addition, it hinders the normal execution of essential functions in prisons;62 b) Those who are being processed must be separated from those who have been convicted; and children must be held separately from adults, so that those deprived of liberty receive treatment appropriate to their situation;63 c) All those deprived consumption and constitutes grave guarantee to those of liberty must have access to potable water for personal to water for personal hygiene; lack of drinking water negligence by the State with regard to its obligation of in its custody;64 d) The food provided in prisons must be of good quality and sufficient nutritional value;65 e) Regular medical attention must be provided, with the necessary and appropriate treatment,66 and by qualified medical personnel when required; f) Education, work and recreation are essential functions of a prison,67 and must be provided to all those deprived of liberty in order to promote the rehabilitation and social adjustment of inmates; g) Visits must be guaranteed in prisons. Detention under a restricted visiting regime may be contrary to humane treatment in certain circumstances;68 Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly by its Resolution 43/173, of 9 December 1988; U.N., United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty. Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly by its Resolution 45/113 of 14 December 1990. See also: U.N., General Comment No. 21 of the Human Rights Committee. 10 April 1992. A/47/40/(SUPP), substituting General Comment No. 9, Humane treatment of Persons Deprived of Liberty (Art. 10): forty-fourth session 1992, and IACHR, Principles and good practice on the protection of persons deprived of liberty in the Americas, adopted at the 131st regular session held from March 3 to 14, 2008. 61 Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 150, and Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti. Merits and reparations. Judgment of November 23, 2011. Series C No. 236, para. 85. 62 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 20, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 204. 63 Cf. Article 5(4) of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights; Case of Tibi, supra note 61, para. 263, and Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 200. 64 Cf. Case of Vélez Loor, supra note 62, para. 216. 65 Cf. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 209. 66 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 61, para. 156, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, supra para. 301. 67 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia), supra note 62, para. 146, and Case of Vélez Loor, supra note 62, para. 204. 68 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo, supra note 14, para. 58, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 66, para. 315. 20