181. In turn, those acts that have been "prepared and carried out deliberately against the victim to eliminate his mental resistance and force him to accuse himself of or confess to certain criminal conduct, or to subject him to other punishments, in addition to the deprivation of freedom itself”. 137 182. The Court has indicated that the violation of a person’s right to physical and psychological integrity has various categories of degree and that it ranges from torture to other types of abuse or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, whose physical and psychological consequences vary in intensity according to endogenous and exogenous factors of the person (duration of treatment, age, sex, health, context, vulnerability, among others) that must be analyzed in each specific situation. 138 In other words, the personal characteristics of an alleged victim of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment must be taken into account when determining whether personal integrity was violated, since such characteristics can change the individual's perception of reality and , therefore, increase the suffering and the sense of humiliation when they are subjected to certain treatment.139 183. With regard to cases of alleged sexual violence, the Court has indicated that sexual assaults are characterized, in general, by occurring in the absence of other persons beyond the victim and the aggressor or aggressors. Given the nature of these forms of violence, the existence of graphic or documentary evidence cannot be expected and, therefore, the victim's statement constitutes fundamental evidence of the fact.140 184. The Court also recalls that the evidence obtained through medical examinations plays a crucial role during the investigations carried out against detainees and in cases where mistreatment is alleged.141 In this sense, the allegations of mistreatment that occurred in police custody are extremely difficult for the victim to substantiate if they were isolated from the outside world, without access to doctors, lawyers, family or friends who can support and gather the necessary evidence.142 Therefore, judicial authorities have the duty to guarantee the rights of the detainee, which entails obtaining and securing any evidence that can prove acts of torture, including medical examinations.143 Additionally, it is important to note that in cases where there are allegations of alleged torture or abuse, the time elapsed for the corresponding medical examinations is essential to reliably determine the existence of the harm, especially when there are no witnesses beyond the perpetrators and the victims themselves and, consequently, evidence may be scarce. Thus, it may be concluded that in order for an investigation into acts of torture to be effective, it must be carried out promptly.144 Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, para. 93, and Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 75. 138 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 57, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, supra, para. 177. 139 Cf. Case of Ximenes López v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 127, and Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 193. 140 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 100, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, supra, para. 315. 141 Cf. Case J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 333, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, supra, para. 315. 142 Cf. Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 333, and Case of Espinoza González. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 151. 143 Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 92, and Case of Favela Nova Brasilia v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C No. 333, para. 253. 144 Cf. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina, supra, para. 111, and Case of Espinoza González v. Argentina, supra, para. 152. 137 45