The Inter-american Regional System 3 under Article 5 of the ACHR, “the State has the obligation to provide regular medical examinations and care to prisoners, and also adequate treatment when this is required. The State must also allow and facilitate prisoners being treated by the physician chosen by themselves or by those who exercise their legal representation or guardianship.”496 In Tibi v Ecuador, the Court stressed that the State “does in fact have the responsibility to guarantee the rights of individuals under its custody as well as that of supplying information and evidence pertaining to what has happened to the detainee.”497 This would appear to require the maintenance of detailed registers in places of detention. 3.2.6 Duty to grant redress and compensate victims Article 63(1) of the ACHR provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.”498 Article 9 of the IACPPT further provides that States parties shall “incorporate into their national laws regulations guaranteeing suitable compensation for victims of torture.” Furthermore, violating States cannot invoke domestic legal provisions to modify or breach their obligation to provide redress, which is regulated in all respects (scope, nature, method and determination of beneficiaries) by international law.499 They may “fix the manner in which the right of reply or correction is to be exercised” at the domestic level, but this “does not impair the enforceability, on the international plane, of the obligations [to respect and ensure the right] they have assumed under Article 1(1) [of the ACHR].”500 De la Cruz Flores v Peru, IACHR (Series C) No. 115, judgement of 18 November 2004, §132. Tibi v Ecuador (2004), op. cit., §129. See also Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v Peru (2004), op. cit., §98; Bulacio v Argentina (2003), op. cit., §138. 498 This reflects a principle of customary international law; Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v Peru (2004), op. cit., §188; 19 Tradesmen v Colombia (2004), op. cit., §220; Theissen v Guatemala, IACHR (Series C) No. 108, judgement of 3 July 2004, §40. 499 Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v Peru (2004), op. cit., §189. See also Ariel E. Dulitzky, Alcance de las Obligaciones Internacionales de los Derechos Humanos in Claudia Martín, Diego Rodríguez Pinzón & José A. Guevara B. Comp. Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos, 79, 82 (Universidad Iberoamericana & others, 1st ed., 2004). 500 Enforceability of the Right to Reply or Correction (Articles 14(1), 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-7/86 of 29 August 1986, IACHR (Series A) No. 7. 496 497 110