96 247. In the case of Yvon Neptune, the Court reaffirmed the standard that this provision “imposes on the States the obligation to establish a classification system for prisoners in penitentiary centers, in order to guarantee that accused persons are separated from convicted persons, and receive treatment adapted to their status as unconvicted persons.” The Court also considered, in keeping with the IACHR’s Principles and Best Practices, that the separation between both categories of inmates “requires not only keeping them in different cells, but also that these cells be located in different 347 sections within a detention center, or in different institutions if this is possible.” 248. The HRC has also explicitly recognized the importance of this provision in terms of respect for the principle of the presumption of innocence, and has established that the States Parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights should “indicate how the separation of accused persons from convicted persons is effected and explain how the treatment of accused persons differs from that of 348 convicted persons.” In so doing, the HRC emphasizes that Article 10.2 of this treaty requires concrete measures to be taken for its implementation. 249. In addressing the separation of inmates by category, such as segregating the accused from the convicted, the IACHR’s Principles and Best Practices also establish that these two categories of persons deprived of liberty should “be kept in separate places of deprivation of liberty or in different sections within the same institution;” and provide that “[u]nder no circumstances shall the separation of persons deprived of liberty based on categories should be used to justify discrimination, the use of torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, or the imposition of harsher or less adequate conditions on a particular group […]” (Principle XIX). 250. In this regard, the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment also establishes as a general rule that “[t]he imposition of restrictions upon such a person which are not strictly required for the purpose of the detention or to prevent hindrance to the process of investigation or …continuation Reparations and Costs. Judgment May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 150; I/A Court HR., Case of Montero Aranguren et al (Retén de Catia) v. Venezuela. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 104; I/A Court HR., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment February 1, 2006. Series C No. 14, paras. 111 and 112; I/A Court HR. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 158. Likewise, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has found the concrete violation of Article 10.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in cases where the victim was held in pretrial detention together with convicted persons. See, for example, UN, HRC, Communication No. 1813/2008, Ebenezer Derek Mbongo Akwanga v. Cameroon, decision of March 22, 2011, CCPR/C/101/D/1813/2008, para. 7.3. 347 I/A Court HR., Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, paras. 146 and 147. 348 UN, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 21: Humane Treatment of Persons Deprived of Liberty, approved at the 44th session (1992), para. 9. In Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies Volume I, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol.I) published on May 27, 2008, p. 243.