8 as well as in the instant Judgment in the Case of Tibi versus Ecuador, the Court warned that "there is an international legal system of absolute prohibition of all forms of torture, both physical and psychological, a system that today falls under the domain of jus cogens. Prohibition of torture is complete and non-revocable, even under the most difficult circumstances, such as war, ‘the struggle against terrorism’ and any other crimes, states of siege or of emergency, of civil commotion or domestic conflict, suspension of constitutional guarantees, domestic political instability, or other public disasters or emergencies" (para. 145). 24. The practice of torture is a hellish threat to civilization itself. One of the infallible criteria of civilization is precisely the treatment given by public authorities of any country to detainees or incarcerated persons. F.M. Dostoyevsky warned about this in his aforementioned Memoirs from the House of the Dead (1862); for him, the degree of civilization attained by any social milieu can be assessed by entering its jails and detention centers.21 Torture is an especially grave violation of human rights because, in its various forms, its ultimate objective is to annul the very identity and personality of the victim, undermining his or her physical or mental resistance; thus, it treats the victim as a “mere means” (in general to obtain a confession), flagrantly violating the basic principle of the dignity of the human person (which expresses the Kantian concept of the human being as an “end in himself”), degrading him, in a perverse and cruel manner,22 and causing him truly irreparable damage. 25. The basic principle of humanity, rooted in the human conscience, rises against torture. Torture is clearly prohibited, as a grave violation of human rights and of International Humanitarian Law, by the universal juridical conscience. This is a definitive attainment of civilization, one that admits no regression. A real international juridical system against torture has in fact developed in the present.23 It includes the United Nations Convention (of 1984, and its recent Protocol of 2002) and the Inter-American (1985) and European (1987) Conventions against torture, in addition to the Special Rapporteur against Torture (since 1985) of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, HRC) and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (since 1991) of that same HRC (which pays special attention to the prevention of torture).24 The three aforementioned co-existing Conventions to combat torture are basically complementary.25 26. The absolute prohibition of torture in any and all circumstances –as the InterAmerican Court has asserted in the instant Judgment in the Case of Tibi versus Ecuador- today falls under international jus cogens (see supra). As I pointed out in my Separate Concurring Opinion in the case of the Urso Branco prison versus Brazil (Provisional Protection Measures, of 07.07.2004), "the State’s obligation of due diligence applies under any and all circumstances, to avoid irreparable damage to 21 See F.M. Dostoyevski, Souvenirs de la maison des morts, op. cit. supra n. (3), pp. 35-416. 22 J.L. de la Cuesta Arzamendi, El Delito de Tortura, Barcelona, Bosch, 1990, pp. 27-28 and 70. . . 23 . See, e.g., N. Rodley, The Treatment of Prisoners under International Law, Paris/Oxford, UNESCO/Clarendon Press, 1987, pp. 17-143. 24 . In addition to these mechanisms, there is the United Nations Voluntary Contributions Fund for Victims of Torture (since 1983). 25 . See, in this regard, A.A. Cançado Trindade, Tratado de Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos, vol. II, Porto Alegre/Brasil, S.A. Fabris Ed., 1999, pp. 345-352.