109 facts, Peru stated, inter alia, that “they cannot be hidden, the pain cannot be hidden, […] those injured cannot be hidden, the pain of the victims’ next of kin cannot be hidden.” (supra para. 135) 268. However, due to the gross circumstances in which the facts occurred and that Peru did not acknowledge the events following May 9, 1992 (supra para. 152), the Tribunal considers it convenient to analyze the violation to Article 5 of the Convention. 269. As indicated by the Court (supra para. 227), in the analysis of the present chapter the elements that determine the seriousness of the facts of this case will be taken into consideration. 270. Likewise, it is important to point out that, in one of its reports, the Obudsman of the People of Peru concluded that the involvement of women in the armed conflict changed the perception of women and caused “a more cruel and violent treatment regarding those women considered ‘suspects’.”148 It has already been proven in this case that the attack started specifically in the prison’s pavilion occupied by the female inmates accused or convicted of crimes of terrorism and treason (supra para. 197(13) and 197(20)). 271. This Tribunal has indicated that torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment are strictly prohibited by international human rights law. The absolute prohibition of torture, both physical and mental, is currently part of the international jus cogens. Said prohibition subsists 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.149 272. Likewise, it has acknowledged that the threats and real danger of submitting a person to physical injuries produces, in certain circumstances, a moral anguish of such degree that it may be considered psychological torture.150 273. The Court has established that the State is responsible, in its condition of guarantor of the rights enshrined in the Convention, of the observance of the right to humane treatment of any individual under its custody.151 It is possible to consider the State responsible for the tortures, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatments suffered by a person under the custody of state agents, if the authorities have not carried out a serious investigation of the facts followed by the prosecution of 148 Cfr. Obudsman of the People of Peru. Defense Report No. 80, Political Violence in Peru: 19801996, page 33. 149 Cfr. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 21, para. 117; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 122, para. 222; and Case of Caesar. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, para. 59. 150 Cfr. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 21, para. 119; Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 147; and Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 92. 151 Cfr. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 138; Case of Baldeón García, supra note 21, para. 120; and Case of López Álvarez, supra note 146, paras. 104 to 106.