47 189. The Court will now address the arguments of the Commission and the representatives related to the alleged acts of torture suffered by Mr. Omeara Miraval while he was disappeared. In this regard, the Court reiterates that the State recognized its international responsibility, for action, for the violation of the rights to recognition of juridical personality, life, humane treatment and personal liberty (Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation to respect the rights (Article 1(1)) of the Convention, for the actions of state agents in collaboration with illegal armed groups that together led to the forced disappearance and execution of Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval (supra paras. 19. a) and 33). However, the Court notes that the dispute continues regarding whether the conditions of Mr. Omeara Miraval’s detention can be considered acts of torture, and whether said acts are attributable to the State. Consequently, the Court will proceed to assess this issue. A. The alleged acts of torture against Mr. Omeara Miraval 190. The Commission warned that the State's acknowledgment of responsibility does not cover the determination made in the Merits Report on the violation of the right to humane treatment, to the detriment of Mr. Omeara Miraval, for the events suffered before his death and while he was disappeared, which, according to the Commission, are sufficient to be considered acts of torture, taking into account the extreme suffering he must have endured before his death. Consequently, the Commission argued that the dispute persists on this point. The representatives pointed out that although the acts of torture do not appear in the autopsy protocol, their existence has not been disproved in the investigation, given that the State did not carry out the necessary steps to determine these elements, including failing to exhume the body, even though it was ordered by the Prosecutor's Office on August 9, 1995. 191. The State did not recognize that the conditions in which Mr. Omeara Miraval was detained constitute acts of torture, but rather that they constituted a violation of humane treatment. B. Considerations of the Court 192. The Court recalls that the American Convention expressly recognizes the right to humane treatment, which is a legal right whose protection encompasses the main purpose of the mandatory prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.183 This Court has consistently considered in its case law that said prohibition today belongs to the domain of ius cogens184 and that the right to humane treatment cannot be suspended under any circumstance.185 In this way, in the case law of this Court, an international legal regime has been formed of absolute prohibition of all forms of torture, both physical and psychological, and with respect to the latter, it has been recognized that the threats and the real danger of subjecting a person to serious physical injury produces, under certain circumstances, such a degree of moral anguish that it can be considered “psychological torture”.186 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 126, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and Nearby Places v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012, para. 147. 184 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 95, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and Nearby Places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 147. 185 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 157, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 50. 186 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits, supra, para. 102 and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 183. 183