39 of receiving physical injuries. Likewise, they stated that the severity of the events, the vulnerability in which the victims found themselves, and the extreme violence used, allow an inference that the suffering was severe. Moreover, the representatives made reference to the “intentional nature of the detention.” 131. With regard to the suffering of the three survivors after the massacre, the representatives pointed out the seriousness of the acts done to them. Consequently, the representatives considered that the psychological torture was even more intense in the case of the three survivors since “after enduring the incessant and indiscriminate gunshots by the paramilitaries and believing that they were about to die, the survivors emerged injured but miraculously alive.” The representatives also indicated that after the massacre they had to wait motionless in fear of the paramilitaries’ return. The representatives stated that all of these events should be considered “circumstances of extreme psychological vulnerability.” 132. The Court recalls that International Law strictly prohibits torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The absolute prohibition of torture, both physical and psychological, is currently part of the domain of international jus cogens. This prohibition holds under any circumstances.112 133. The Court will now analyze the aforementioned arguments by the representatives in the context of Article 5.2 of the American Convention, taking into account developments in the Court’s own jurisprudence, as well as the provisions of Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and other pertinent international instruments. 134. With regard to the treatment endured by the 15 members of the Judicial Commission, the Court stresses that the massacre was not executed immediately after their detention. Rather, the victims were detained for approximately three hours, during which they were subjected to intense suffering as a result of threats, intimidation, and deception by a paramilitary group much stronger than them in numbers as well as weaponry. They were forced to hand over the few weapons they carried, and were held captive under watch for hours. In these circumstances, they were interrogated about the judicial investigation they were undertaking. They were tied with their hands behind their backs, forced to board two vehicles, and were taken approximately three kilometers away, during which time they were unaware of their fate (supra para. 107 to 112). 135. With regard to the suffering endured by the three survivors during and after the massacre, the Court notes that, during the executions, these individuals endured additional circumstances of intense psychological suffering, as well as physical injuries, given that they had just survived a violent attack with bursts of gunfire and, later, the final fatal shots. Moreover, they were present during the suffering and death of their friends and colleagues, and felt the possibility that they might die in those moments as well. They even had to feign their own death in order to survive. Likewise, after the massacre, surviving victim Arturo Salgado had to endure five hours of great fear and anxiety when he found himself alone, knowing that the paramilitaries could return at any moment and execute him. At the same time, the gunshot wounds he suffered went without medical attention, and he was unable to go for help. These circumstances constituted additional physical and psychological suffering, and compounded the suffering he had already endured during the hours of detention and the massacre. 112 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 8, para. 271; Case of Baldeón García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 117; and Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 222.