61. Likewise, both the IACHR and the Court have repeatedly held that international human rights law absolutely and strictly prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. 62 The prohibition is absolute and unrepealable and today pertains to international jus cogens (compelling law).63 62. The IACHR observes in the instant case that the petitioners alleged that i) Mr. Deras' mother was beaten in her home by military personnel; ii) Mr. Deras' father was beaten in his home, tied, and taken out of his home by military personnel; iii) Mr. Deras' sister, Irma Isabel, had her hands tied to her feet and was threatened in a DNI cell; iv) Mr. Deras' wife and his sister-in-law were blindfolded and threatened in a DNI cell and were denied food and drink for days; v) Mr. Deras' brother, Luis Rolando, was threatened and beaten by members of the DNI; and vi) several of Mr. Deras' next of kin were taken to DNI cells where they were beaten and kicked by military personnel. 63. The Commission notes that those allegations of acts committed by military personnel were not contested by the State. The Commission further observes that those deeds took place in the aforementioned context of “national security doctrine." Although the Commission does not possess sufficient information to be able to say whether in each of the deeds described in which personal integrity was violated there were elements constituting torture, it is abundantly established that the aforementioned persons suffered at least cruel and inhuman treatment. The Commission reiterates that these facts were neither contested nor investigated by the State. Consequently, the IACHR concludes that the State is responsible for violation of rights protected in Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1.1 of that instrument, to the detriment of the persons listed in paragraph 62 to this report. 64. Based on the right protected under Article 11.2 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Court has maintained that the sphere of privacy is characterized by being exempt and immune from abuse and arbitrary invasion by third parties or public authorities.64 In the same vein, a home is a space in which persons are free to live their private life. 65 Thus, the Court has held that the illegal intrusion of a dwelling by armed forces constitutes an abuse and an arbitrary invasion of the private life and home of the persons affected.66 65. In the instant case, the petitioners alleged that military personnel raided the following homes without any judicial warrant: those belonging to i) Herminio Deras; ii) Mr. Deras' parents; and iii) two homes of family members in the town of El Progreso. That information has not been contested by the State. Consequently, the IACHR concludes that the State is responsible for violation of the right protected in Article 11.2 of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1.1 of that instrument, to the detriment of the persons referred to in the foregoing paragraph. 66. Regarding the right to personal liberty, the Commission stresses that Article 7 of the American Convention specifies the guarantees of that right that States must respect and safeguard. For its part, the Court has established that Article 7 of the American Convention contains two distinct types of regulation: one general and the other specific. The general regulation is set forth in the first numbered paragraph: "1.Every person has the right to personal liberty and security." While the specific one is composed of a series of guarantees that protect the right not to be deprived of liberty unlawfully (Article 7[2]) or arbitrarily (Article 7[3]), to be informed of the reasons for the detention and the charges brought against him (Article 7[4]), to judicial control of the deprivation of liberty (Article 7[5]), and to contest the lawfulness of the arrest (Article 7[6]). 67 Any IACHR. Report No. 33/16. Case 12.797, Merits. Linda Loaiza López Soto and family members. Venezuela. July 29, 2016, par. 172. See, also: I/A Court H.R. Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 371, par. 177. 63 I/A Court H.R. Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 15, 2018. Series C No. 353, par. 220. 64 I/A Court H.R. Case of Yarce et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2016. Series C No. 325, par. 255. 65 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Santa Bárbara Campesino Community v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, par. 200. 66 I/A Court H.R. Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 341, par. 243. 67 I/A Court H.R. Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, par. 346. 62 12