68 156. According to Article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, torture implies deliberately inflicting punishment or physical or mental suffering in order to intimidate, punish, investigate or prevent crimes, punish their commitment or any other end. 157. Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture defines this 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 to 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 him physical pain or mental anguish. and adds: The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not include the performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article. 158. The Court considers that the acts denounced in the present case were deliberately prepared and inflicted, in order to obtain information that was relevant for the Army from Efraín Bámaca Velásquez. According to the testimonies received in this proceeding, the alleged victim was submitted to grave acts of physical and mental violence during a prolonged period of time for the said purpose and, thus, intentionally placed in a situation of anguish and intense physical suffering, which can only be qualified as both physical and mental torture. * * * 159. It its final arguments, the Commission requested the Court to declare that Article 5 of the Convention had been violated, to the detriment of the wife of Bámaca Velásquez, Jennifer Harbury, and his direct next of kin, José de León Bámaca Hernández, Egidia Gebia Bámaca Velásquez and Josefina Bámaca Velásquez. 160. This Court has indicated on other occasions, that the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may, in turn, become victims106. In a case involving the forced disappearance of a person, the Court stated that the violation of the mental and moral integrity of the next of kin is precisely a direct consequence of the forced disappearance. In particular, the Court considered that the “circumstances of such disappearances generate suffering and anguish, in addition to a sense of insecurity, frustration and impotence in the face of the public authorities' failure to investigate.”107 106 Cf. Villagrán Morales et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 175; Castillo Páez Case, supra note 52, fourth decision; Castillo Páez Case. Reparations, supra note 56, para. 59; and Blake Case, supra note 52, para. 115. 107 Cf. Blake Case, supra note 52, para. 114.