- 69 - may be, is sufficient for an act to be considered rape. The Court understand that rape is a form of sexual violence.281 183. In particular, rape is a paradigmatic form of violence against women the consequences of which even exceed the victim herself.282 This Court has also emphasized how the rape of a women who is detained or in the custody of a State agent is an especially egregious and reprehensible act, taking into account the vulnerability of the victim and the abuse of power deployed by the agent.283 184. The Court takes note that, in the instant case, the State has not contested the facts related to the sexual violence endured by the eleven women in the context of their detention, transfer and subsequent “deposit” in the CEPRESO. To the contrary, Mexico has expressly acknowledged these facts (supra para. 35). 185. Nevertheless, the Court notes the consistency of the different statements provided by the women regarding what happened. Also, in many cases, the injuries that were recorded, although superficial, were consistent with some of the abuse recounted; also their statements are supported by the expert appraisals that were conducted in application of the Istanbul Protocol (supra paras. 106 to 112). 186. The Court also notes that the abuse committed against the eleven women took place in a broader context verified by the SCJN, which concluded that “during the police operations [of May 3 and 4, 2006,] the police used sexual and physical force against most of the women detained.” It also determined that at least 62% of the women detained in the operations recounted that they had suffered sexual abuse.284 In this regard, the Court observes that the sexual violence suffered by the eleven women was not isolated, but took place within a pattern that occurred throughout the operation. 187. Taking the foregoing into account, as well as the facts described above (paras. 75 to 105), the Court notes that the eleven women were subjected to the following forms of violence, including rape: 1. Yolanda Muñoz Diosdada: was beaten, kicked, insulted, pulled by her hair, mauled and threatened with death or disappearance at the time of her detention. During the transfer to the prison, she was groped by a police agent who lifted up her blouse and “squeezed her and pinched her nipples,” he removed her underwear, “touched her and rubbed her vagina.” On arriving at CEPRESO, she was beaten once again, pulled by her hair and kicked, and made to undress in front of numerous people to be examined. 2. Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio: was beaten and left semi-naked at the time of her detention. During the transfers, they walked over her, touched her and beat her Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 359, and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350, para. 290. 281 Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 119, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 187. 282 Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 311, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C No. 333, para. 255. 283 284 SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 30937).