37 obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish. And adds: The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not include the performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article. 99. The European Court has pointed out recently that certain acts that were classified in the past as inhuman or degrading treatment, but not as torture, may be classified differently in the future, that is, as torture, since the growing demand for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms must be accompanied by a more vigorous response in dealing with infractions of the basic values of democratic societies.54 100. It should be pointed out that, according to international standards for protection, torture can be inflicted not only via physical violence, but also through acts that produce severe physical, psychological or moral suffering in the victim. 101. Both the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the Inter-American Convention on the same subject, make reference to this possibility. Also, by institutionalizing the right to personal integrity, the latter of these two international instruments makes explicit reference to respect for the psychological and moral integrity of the person. 102. International jurisprudence has been developing the notion of psychological torture. The European Court of Human Rights has established that the mere possibility of the commission of one of the acts prohibited in Article 3 of the European Convention is sufficient to consider that said article has been violated, although the risk must be real and imminent. In line with this, to threaten someone with torture may constitute, in certain circumstances, at least “inhuman treatment.”55 That same Tribunal has decided that, for purposes of determining whether Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been violated, not only physical suffering, but also moral anguish, must be considered.56 Having examined communications received from individuals, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has classified the threat of serious physical injury as a form of “psychological torture.”57 103. The above leads to the conclusion that a true international system prohibiting all forms of torture has been put in place. 104. Considering the circumstances of the case, and the context in which the facts took place, this Tribunal considers, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at least some of the acts of aggression examined in this case can be classified as physical and 54 cfr. Eur. Court HR, Selmouni v. France, supra note 51, para. 101. 55 cfr. Eur. Court HR, Campbell v. Cosans, Judgment of 25 February 1982, Series A Vol. 48, para. 26. 56 cfr. Eur. Court HR, Soering v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A Vol. 161, paras. 110 and 111. 57 cfr. United Nations. Human Rights Committee. Miguel Angel Estrella v. Uruguay, No. 74/1980 of March 29, 1983, paras. 8.6 and 10.