55 denied the occurrence of torture and never opened any kind of investigation in this regard, even though it bore the burden of proving what happened, because Ms. Espinoza was in the State’s custody. Furthermore, they argued that the presumed incommunicado of Ms. Espinoza contributed to placing her in a situation of special vulnerability in relation to the agents who were assaulting her, constituting a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Based on the foregoing, they asserted that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to respect and to ensure the right to humane treatment of Gladys Espinoza, in violation of Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, and of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 146. The representatives also argued that, in this case, the State had violated the right to privacy of Gladys Espinoza “by committing a brutal act against her free exercise of her sexual autonomy and privacy.” Thus, they argued that the State had violated Article 11(1) of the Convention, as well as Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of Gladys Carol Espinoza González. 147. The State indicated, first, that according to Police Attestation No. 108-D3-DINCOTE of May 15, 1993, on the day Gladys Espinoza and Rafael Salgado were arrested, the agents “proceeded to follow them, […] and the vehicle in which the police agents were driving finally collided with [their] motorcycle […], and [they were captured] following their strong resistance, with the use of the respective firearms.” The State also indicated that, a criminal investigation was being conducted by the Public Prosecution Service in order to clarify the facts and to punish those presumably responsible for the supposed acts of torture and sexual violence that took place at the DIVISE and DINCOTE headquarters in April and May 1993. In this regard, in its final written arguments, it affirmed that “it is not a matter of this party failing to deny or contest that, from the time of her arrest, Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles was presumably subjected to numerous acts of ill-treatment, torture and rape. What the State has indicated […] is that the [Public Prosecution Service] has been commissioned to investigate any acts that could constitute an offense […] in order to determine whether these acts occurred and to identity those presumed to be responsible for them.” In addition, Peru asserted that, “merely because the Final Report of the CVR says that, in certain agencies and areas of the country, or at certain periods of time, sexual abuse occurred, it cannot be concluded that this happened every time someone was detained for terrorism.” The State did not refer to the arguments related to the incommunicado suffered by Ms. Espinoza González. B.2. Considerations of the Court 148. To analyze the arguments of the Commission and of the parties, the Court will proceed, first, to establish the facts that occurred at the time of Gladys Espinoza’s arrest and while she was at the DIVISE and the DINCOTE headquarters. To this end, the Court will take into account: (i) the Final Report of the “CVR”; (ii) the statements made by Gladys Espinoza between 1993 and 2014; (iii) the reports prepared by the DIVISE and the DINCOTE in 1993 on the circumstances in which Gladys Espinoza and Rafael Salgado were arrested; (iv) the medical certificates and/or psychological appraisals issued between 1993 and 2014, mostly by the State’s forensic doctors, as well as the expert appraisal provided to the Court by the psychologist Ana Deutsch; (v) the testimony of Lily Cuba and Manuel Espinoza Gonzáles before the Inter-American Court, and (vi) the alleged failure to investigate the said facts. All the above, taking into consideration the context in which the facts occurred, which has already been established by the Court (supra paras. 51 to 68). Once it has established the facts that occurred, Furukawa, and that they also took her out into the street so that she would provide information on places related to MRTA activities. They also argued that, despite the time that has passed, Ms. Espinoza has continued to experience physical and psychological effects as a result of the presumed aggression she suffered.