Valencia were victims of acts of torture that, since they were based on a gender stereotype, were contrary to Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 189. F.E.P.M. and Patricia Gallardo Ardúz were raped several times by police officers during their detention. Also, Claudia Valencia Alarcón testified that all the women who were confined in the PTJ holding cells were taken out into a corridor several times where they were undressed and the police searched them, introducing their ungloved fingers into the women’s vaginas (supra para. 74). Consequently, in keeping with the prevailing normative and case law criteria in both international criminal law and in comparative criminal law, this Court finds that the foregoing constituted an act of gang rape against Norma Lupe Alarcón de Valencia, Claudia Valencia Alarcón, Mercedes Valencia Chuquimia, Victoria Gutiérrez, Jenny Paola Lulleman and Julia Mamanu Mamani. This Court considers that rape is any act of non-consensual vaginal or anal penetration with any body part of the perpetrator or object, as well as oral penetration by the male organ.281 For an act to be considered rape, it is sufficient that there is sexual penetration, however slight, as described above.282 In addition, it should be understood that vaginal penetration refers to penetration with any part of the perpetrator’s body or objects, of any genital orifice, including the labia majora and minora, as well as the vaginal orifice. This interpretation corresponds to the concept that any type of penetration is sufficient for an act to be considered rape. 190. The Court understands that rape is a form of sexual violence.283 In particular, rape constitutes a paradigmatic form of violence against women the consequences of which even go beyond the person of the victim.284 In this case, it is clear that the police officers acted against the women deliberately. In addition, with regard to the severity of the suffering, this Court has recognized that sexual violence committed by state agents while the victims are in their custody is a grave and reprehensible act during which the agent abuses of his power and takes advantage of the victim’s vulnerability, so that it may cause the victims severe psychological suffering.285 Such consequences may be presumed, despite the lack of testimony in this regard. Indeed, it should be borne in mind that, in the case of sexual violence, sexual assault corresponds to a type of crime that the victim usually does not report owing to the stigma generally entailed by a report of this nature. Consequently, in many cases, the victims decide to keep silent, so that it is possible to have recourse to presumptions and indications. Lastly, regarding the purpose, the Court notes that the facts of the case reveal that the sexual violence had an intimidating purpose, and included threats and humiliations to force the victims to confess and cooperate in the context of the investigation of the Prosegur case. 191. Based on the above, the Court finds that F.E.P.M., Patricia Gallardo Ardúz, Norma Lupe Alarcón de Valencia, Claudia Valencia Alarcón, Mercedes Valencia Chuquimia, Victoria Gutiérrez, Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra, para. 310, and Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 142. 281 282 Cf. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, The Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija. Judgment of December 10 1998, case No. IT-95-17/1-T, para. 185; International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, The Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al. Judgment of February 22, 2001, case No. IT-96-23-T and IT-96-23/1-T, paras. 437 and 438; International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, The Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al. Judgment on Appeal of June 12, 2002, case No. IT-96-23-T and IT-96-23/1-T, para. 127. 283 Cf. Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 359, and Case of the Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 371, para. 182. Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 119, and Case of the Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, supra, para. 183. 284 285 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra, para. 311, and Case of the Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, supra, para.196. 56