- 59 - state strategy, and were not the result of unlawful orders by senior authorities to plan the abuse or plot actions against the protesters.” 157. Mexico stressed that, despite the foregoing, “at no time was a direct order given by the commanders in charge of the operation, who are hierarchical superiors of the Mexican State, to attack the protesters or to carry out acts of sexual violence.” In addition, the State emphasized that “the deployment of force on May 3 and 4, 2006, was legitimate and in keeping with the law (as were the orders issued by the senior commanders),” because it constituted a necessary reaction to the levels of violence reached by the protest. It argued that “the human rights violations committed in this case did not arise from an illegitimate instruction on the use of force, but were committed disregarding the lawful way in which the police should conduct themselves, as actions ultra vires of state agents, which the State, nonetheless, recognizes give rise to its international responsibility.” The State also acknowledged its international responsibility with regard to the “violation of its obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions […] owing to the absence of a domestic legal framework on the use of force and torture at the time of the events.” B. Considerations of the Court 158. In this case, the Court will examine: (i) the use of force by State law enforcement agents and the violation of the right of assembly; (ii) sexual violence and rape committed against the eleven women and its classification as torture in this case: (iii) the use of sexual violence as a weapon to control public order; (iv) the use of stereotypes in the repression, and the response to the complaints of abuse by the victims;; (v) the medical abuse experienced by the victims, and (vi) the gender-based discrimination that occurred in this case. B.1 Use of force and right of assembly B.1.1 Use of force 159. The Court has recognized that States have the obligation to ensure security and to maintain public order within their territory and, therefore, have the right to use force legitimately to reestablish this if necessary.222 Even though State agents may resort to the use of force and, in some circumstances, even lethal force, the State’s power to achieve its purposes are not unlimited, regardless of the gravity of certain actions and of the guilt of the authors. 223 160. The Court has had recourse to different international instruments on this matter and, in particular, to the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials224 and the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, 225 to provide content to the Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 154, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 17, 2015. Series C No. 292, para. 264. 222 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 154, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 17, 2015. Series C No. 292, para. 262. 223 Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (hereinafter, “Basic Principles on the Use of Force”) adopted at the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Havana, Cuba, from August 27 to September 7, 1990. 224 Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 34/169, December 17, 1979. 225