109. According to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter: "IACPPT) forms part of the inter-American body of law (corpus iuris) to be used to establish the content and scope of the general provision contained in Article 5.2 of the Convention.103 Article 2 of the first instrument defines torture as: [...] any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to 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. 110. In the light of Inter-American and Inter-American Court precedents, for a conduct to be characterized as torture the following three elements must be present: i) the act is intentional; ii) it causes intense physical or mental suffering; and iii) it is committed to achieve a specific goal or purpose.104 The aforementioned Court has established 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."105 Likewise, the Court has pointed out that persons who are deprived of liberty are in a situation of special vulnerability. Therefore, the competent authorities have a duty to adopt measures to protect their physical integrity and their dignity as human beings.106 It has also asserted that the State may be considered liable for torture, and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment if the competent authorities do not conduct a serious investigation into acts of that nature committed to the detriment of persons in their custody.107 111. Consequently, taking into account all the information available. inter alia, the eye witness's account, the conclusions of the Truth Commission's Report, and, in particular, the clandestine nature of the deprivation of liberty, the IACHR considers that during his prolonged detention under military custody, in facilities without judicial oversight, Mr. Jorge Vásquez Durand was subjected to acts constituting torture under the terms of Article 5.2 of the American Convention. 112. With respect to the right to life, the Inter-American Court has held that said right is a fundamental human right, the full exercise of which is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights.108 The foregoing means that States have both the obligation to guarantee the creation of the necessary conditions to ensure that violations of this inalienable right do not occur, as well as the duty to prevent the 103 I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paragraph 145. IACHR, Report No. 5/96, Case 10.970, Merits, Raquel Martin Mejía, Peru, March 1, 1996, section 3. Analysis, posted atwww.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/95span/cap.III.peru10.970.htm. I/A Court H.R., Case of Bueno-Alves. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 164 par. 79. 104 105 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paragraph 272. Baldeón García Case v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 06, 2006. Series C No. 147 par. 119; Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paragraph 147, and Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, paragraph 92. 106 See also U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7 at 176 (1992), Human Rights Committee, General Comment 21, par. 3; European Court on Human Rights, Case of Dzieciak v. Poland, Application No. 77766/01, Judgment of 9 December 2008; European Court of Human Rights, Case of Slimani v. France, Application No. 57671/00, Judgment of 27 July 2004, par. 28. 107 I/A Court H.R., Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147 par. 120; and The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, paragraph 170. Along the same lines, see Eur.C.H.R., Yavuz v. Turkey, Judgment of 10 January 2006, App. No. 67137/01, paragraph 38; Eur.C.H.R., Aksoy v. Turkey, Judgment of 18 December 1996, App. No. 100/1995/606/694, paragraphs 61 and 62; and Eur.C.H.R., Tomasi v. France, Judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, paragraphs 108-111. 108 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 04, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 78; and The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, paragraph 144. 26