20 b) whether the State has failed to comply with its general obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to give domestic legal effect to the rights protected under Article 5; and c) whether Mr. Caesar’s conditions of detention amounted to a violation of said provisions on the part of the State. * Regarding the lawfulness of the State’s imposition of the corporal punishment of flogging under Article 5(1) and 5(2), in conjunction with Article 1(1), of the Convention, and the manner in which the judicial corporal punishment was inflicted upon Mr. Caesar 56. The Commission submitted that the form of punishment to which Mr. Caesar was subjected, is “by its nature, intention and effects [inherently] inconsistent with the [minimum] standards of humane treatment under Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention”. 57. To judge whether the State violated Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention in the instant case, the Court must first decide upon the compatibility of a state’s imposition of corporal punishment, specifically by flogging, with regard to said provision. To this end, the Court deems it pertinent to offer an overview of this punishment under international and domestic law and practice. 58. Every international human rights instrument of general scope, whether regional or universal, contains provisions similar in content to Article 5 of the American Convention.14 These general provisions are complemented by the express prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in particular international instruments and, of relevance to the instant case, the prohibition of the use of corporal punishment.15 59. The Inter-American Court has held that […] torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment are strictly prohibited by international human rights law. The prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment is absolute and non-derogable, even under the most difficult circumstances, such as war, threat of war, the fight against terrorism and any other crimes, martial law or a state of emergency, civil commotion or conflict, suspension of constitutional guarantees, internal political instability or other public emergencies or catastrophes.16 14 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5); American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (Article 1); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 7); European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Article 3); African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights (Article 5) and Arab Charter of Human Rights (Article 13). 15 United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted August 30, 1955 by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, U.N. Doc. A/CONF/611, annex I, E.S.C. res. 663C, 24 U.N. ESCOR Supp. (No. 1) at 11, U.N. Doc. E/3048 (1957), amended E.S.C. res. 2076, 62 U.N. ESCOR Supp. (No. 1) at 35, U.N. Doc E/5988 (1977). Rule 31 specifically provides that “[c]orporal punishment, punishment by placing in a dark cell, and all cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment shall be completely prohibited as punishment for disciplinary offences”. 16 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía, supra note 10, para. 100; Case of De la Cruz-Flores, Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, para. 125; and Case of Tibi, Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 143.