by excessive delay; and Mr. Caesar’s observation of the suffering of other prisoners who had been flogged.”518 3.3.3 Conditions of detention The Inter-American Court has made it clear that persons deprived of their liberty have the right to be treated with dignity. As the State is responsible for detention facilities and has full control of those in its custody, it is the guarantor of the rights of detainees, including the right to personal integrity.519 Thus, the State has a duty to ensure that conditions of detention are compatible with the personal dignity of detainees; poor conditions of detention, “depending on their intensity, length of detention and personal features of the inmate,… can cause hardship that exceed[s] the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and… involve humiliation and a feeling of inferiority” in breach of Article 5 of the ACHR.520 3 The Inter-american Regional System The Inter-American Court has yet to rule on a case of corporal punishment in the private sphere, for example punishment of children by their parents. In light of the Court’s willingness to adopt standards developed by other international instances, and the position of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on this point, it seems likely that the Court would find a violation of the Convention where the State has not taken all reasonable measures to prevent such acts. As noted in section 3.2.5 above, the ACHR specifically provides for the separation of different categories of detainee. The Court has expanded on the other requirements regarding conditions of detention in its jurisprudence. In particular, the Court has found that overcrowding, a lack of ventilation or natural light, inadequate bedding, inadequate sanitary conditions, inappropriate or Ibid. §88. Neira Alegría and Others v Peru, IACHR (Series C) No. 20, judgement of 19 January 1995, §60; Cantoral-Benavides v Peru (2000), op. cit., §87; Hilaire and Others v Trinidad and Tobago (2002), op. cit., §165. See also Tibi v Ecuador (2004), op. cit., §§129, 150; Juvenile Reeducation Institute v Paraguay (2004), op. cit., §§152–153; and Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v Peru (2004), op. cit., §98, Caesar v Trinidad and Tobago (2005), op. cit., §97; Berenson-Mejía v Peru (2004), op. cit., §102. 520 Montero-Aranguren and Others v Venezuela (2006), op. cit., §97. Article 19 of the ACHR provides special protection to children, specifying that every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the State. This obligation is therefore particularly strict as regards the conditions of juvenile detention. See, for example Servellón-García v Honduras (2006), op. cit., §112; Juvenile Reeducation Institute v Paraguay (2004), op. cit., §16; Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v Peru (2004), op. cit., §§124, 163, 164, 171; Bulacio v Argentina (2003), op. cit., §126, 134; Villagrán Morales and Others v Guatemala (1999), op. cit., §§146, 191. 518 519 115