418. The Court has established that torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are strictly prohibited by international human rights law. 646 The prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is absolute and nonderogable, even under the most difficult circumstances, such as war, threat of war, the fight against terrorism and any other crimes, states of emergency, civil unrest or internal conflict, suspension of constitutional guarantees, internal political instability, or other public emergencies or catastrophes. 647 419. The Court has indicated that any use of force that is not strictly necessary owing to the conduct of the person detained constitutes an attack on human dignity that violates Article 5 of the American Convention. 648 In this case, the State has not proved that the force used by the State authorities during the detention of Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci, Eduardo Matson Ospino, Orlando Quijano and José Vicente Rubiano Galvis was necessary. The Court must therefore decide whether the facts constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 420. In order to define what should be understood as “torture” in light of Article 5(2) of the American Convention, the Court’s case law has indicated that an act that constitutes torture is committed when the ill-treatment: (a) is intentional; (b) causes severe physical or mental suffering, and (c) is perpetrated for a purpose or objective. 649 It has also been recognized that the threat and real danger of a person being subjected to physical harm produces, in certain circumstances, a moral anguish of such intensity that it can be considered psychological torture. 650 421. The Court has asserted that the individual’s right to physical and mental integrity can be violated at different levels ranging from torture to other types of abuse or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment the physical and mental aftereffects of which vary in intensity according to factors that are endogenous and exogenous to the person (such as duration of the treatment, age, sex, health, context, vulnerability) which must be analyzed in each specific situation. 651 422. In this case, it has been proved that: (i) Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and Eduardo Matson Ospino survived the events of the taking and retaking of the Palace of Justice, following which they were considered “suspicious”; (ii) they left the Palace of Justice in the custody of the security forces, who were “pointing a revolver or a pistol at them,” they were told “run, you son of a bitch, run so that we can shoot you, there are snipers around who are going to kill you”; (iii) when they arrived at the Casa del Florero they were taken to the 646 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 95, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 304. 647 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 100, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 304. 648 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 57, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 363. 649 Cf. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 79, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 364. 650 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 102, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 364. 651 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, paras. 57 and 58, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (“Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People”) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, para. 388. 146