80 226. In this regard, several international organizations have recognized that, during armed conflicts, women and children face specific situations that affect their human rights, such as acts of sexual violence, which is frequently used as a symbolic means of humiliating the opposing party or as a means of punishment and repression. 381 The use of the State’s power to violate the rights of women during an internal conflict, in addition to affecting them directly, may be aimed at having an effect on society through such violations and providing a message or a lesson. 382 In particular, rape is a paradigmatic form of violence against women which has consequences that even transcend the person of the victim. 383 227. Thus, during the public hearing before the Court, expert witness Julissa Mantilla asserted that, in armed conflicts, “sexual violence is not a casual act; it is not an act that is disconnected from the war, but rather […] it may be a strategy of war.” 384 228. The Court notes that witness Félix Reátegui, principal adviser to the President of the CVR and operational coordinator of the Final Report Unit, classified sexual violence against women in Peru as a “pattern of criminality” because “while it was a recurring action by both non-State [..] and State agents – in other words, members of the Armed Forces and the Police – […] acts of sexual violence have a recurrence, a generalization and a systematization which indicate that, at certain times and in certain places, it is necessary to speak of crimes against humanity that can be attributed to both State and non-State agents.” He also indicated that these acts could have an instrumental or a non-instrumental motivation, as follows: “a motivation that may be called instrumental that is associated with the intention of punishing the victim; destroying the victim morally; punishing, humiliating and morally destroying the man by using the body of the woman victim; extracting confessions by torture. The other aspect, non-instrumental, is simply the exercise of absolute power that men have over women; in some cases also being used as a “reward” that the head of an armed unit gives to his subordinates so that they may obtain sexual satisfaction with the woman who, thus, in this case is used as one of the spoils of war for the sexual satisfaction of the soldiers or subordinates.” 385 229. The Court has already established that the acts of violence and rape perpetrated against Gladys Espinoza during her detention in the DIVISE and the DINCOTE were consistent with the generalized practice of sexual violence that existed in Peru at the time of the facts (supra para. 67). In this regard, the Court recalls that a significant number of women detainees were subjected to gender-based sexual violence owing to their real or presumed personal involvement in the armed conflict, as well as those whose partners were real or supposed members of the subversive groups (supra para. 63). In the instant case, the Court has already established that the torture to which Gladys Espinoza was subjected, which included rape and other forms of sexual violence, took place in the context of a detention and was aimed at obtaining information on the abduction of a businessman by the MRTA. The Court also recalls that the State agents who arrested her together with Rafael Salgado threatened him that unless he provided information on the whereabouts of this businessman, “20 [men would] have their way with her” 381 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra, paras. 223 and 224, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 165. See also, Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation 19: Violence against women, supra, para. 16, and Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy, submitted in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 2000/45, “Violence against women perpetrated and/or condoned by the State during times of armed conflict (1997-2000)”, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2001/73, 23 January 2001. 382 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra, para. 224, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 165. 383 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 119, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 165. 384 Testimony provided by Julissa Mantilla during the public hearing on merits held in this case. 385 Affidavit made on March 27, 2014, by Félix Reategui Carrillo (merits file, folios 921 and 926).