37 justice, which is inherent to their legal standing as subjects of International Human Rights Law.69 111. The arguments of the representatives regarding the application of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture are related to the facts that took place on September 25, 1990 (supra para. 19). 112. In this regard, the Court notices that Peru deposited an instrument of ratification of said treaty on March 28, 1991. In accordance with Article 22 thereof, the Convention shall enter into force for each State ratifying or acceding to it “on the thirtieth day following the date on which that State deposits its instrument of ratification or accession.” 113. Based on the foregoing, the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis to issue a decision on the allegations made by the representatives regarding Articles 2 and 3 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (supra para. 107(a)(ii)). * * * 114. The Court notices that the same facts acknowledged by the State, and to which it acquiesced with respect to the victim’s integrity, were also alleged as torture by the Commission and the representatives. The Commission pointed out that Mr. Bernabé Baldeón-García was subjected to “physical maltreatment that may be qualified as torture” (supra para. 106(a)(vi)). And the representatives stated that Mr. Bernabé Baldeón-García was “cruelly tortured” (supra para. 107(a)(i)). 115. The Court considers that the acquiescence of the State to the violation of Article 5 of the Convention with respect to the alleged “maltreatment” that was meted out to Mr. Bernabé Baldeón-García during his arrest and before his death (supra para. 20), constitutes a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings and the enforcement of the principles underlying the American Convention (supra para. 55). 116. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court considers it relevant to analyze herein: a) the application of Article 5(2) of the American Convention; and b) the alleged violation of Article 5 to the detriment of Mr. Bernabé Baldeón-García’s next of kin. a) Application of Article 5(2) of the Convention to the instant case 117. This Court has asserted that torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment are strictly forbidden by International Human Rights Law. The absolute prohibition against torture, whether physical or psychological, is now part of the international jus cogens. Said prohibition applies even under the most difficult circumstances, such as war, threat of war, fight against terrorism and other crimes, curfew or state of emergency, domestic upheaval or conflict, suspension of 69 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 57; and Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 59, para. 91; and Case of De La Cruz-Flores. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, para. 122.