A. Arguments of the Parties and the Commission 177. The Commission alleged that Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila was subjected to physical and psychological torture by state agents, including sexual torture through anal penetration with a baton until he lost consciousness on May 27, 1998, with the purpose of obtaining his confession for a specific crime. This fact, in the opinion of the Commission, proves the severity of the violence against Mr. Valenzuela. In addition, it indicated that Mr. Valenzuela was tortured on two occasions through severe blows to different parts of the body, suffocation with rat poison, accompanied by death threats and rape that reached a high level of severity to be classified as torture in order to punish the alleged victim for escaping from prison. Consequently, the Commission considered that the State violated the absolute prohibition of torture, the autonomy and private life of the alleged victim, in violation of Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 11(1), in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Valenzuela. The Commission similarly concluded that the State violated Articles 1 and 6 of the IACPPT. 178. The representatives argued that the State committed acts of torture to the detriment of Mr. Valenzuela on May 27 and 28, 1998 at the time of his arrest through physical violence such as suffocation and the introduction of a baton into his anus, in order to obtain a confession about the murder of the prosecutor SJR. In addition to this, they indicated that during his second recapture he was subject to new acts of torture on June 17 and 18, 2001, evidenced by punctures in his hand, cigarette burns on his face and genitals; sexual torture, consisting of forcefully squeezing his testicles; threatening him with rape; torture by suffocation with a hood containing a rat poison called “gamezán” in order to obtain information on how the mass escape of prisoners had been planned and executed on June 17, 2001; intimidate or punish him, for having reported the torture inflicted by CAL and the other police officers, in the criminal trial and to obtain information about the murder of the prosecutor SJR. Furthermore, they indicated that the State inflicted cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment on Mr. Valenzuela, since he did not receive adequate medical treatment after his arrest on April 10, 1999, and after the torture he suffered on May 27, 1998, and on June 17 and 18, 2001. They also argued that the State is responsible for the violation of Mr. Valenzuela Ávila’s personal integrity for having subjected him to the phenomenon of death row. Consequently, it indicated that the State violated Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, and is responsible for failing to comply with the obligations contained in Articles 1, 6, 7 and 8 of the IACPPT. 179. The State specified, when acknowledging its responsibility for the lack of investigation of the acts of torture reported by Mr. Valenzuela, that said acknowledgment does not extend to the existence of the alleged acts of torture. The State pointed out that there are no documents to substantiate the acts of torture, so it does not have the certainty to determine whether they occurred. B. Considerations of the Court 180. The Court recalls that Article 5(1) of the Convention establishes in general terms the right to humane treatment, be it mental, physical or moral. In addition, article 5(2) establishes, more specifically, the absolute prohibition of subjecting someone to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Additionally, it has been recognized that the absolute prohibition of torture, both physical and psychological, belongs today to the domain of international jus cogens.136 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 92, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, supra, para. 178. 136 44