25 Federal Capital considered that “all the elements taken together […] support Bayarri’s version that he was tortured.”75 87. The Inter-American Court considers it sufficient to accept the conclusion reached by the Argentine courts and, notwithstanding the criminal responsibility that may be decided in the domestic jurisdiction, considers that Juan Carlos Bayarri was subjected to torture. The ill-treatment applied to him by State agents was the result of a deliberate action implemented to extract an incriminating confession (supra para. 85). The severity of the injuries confirmed in this case allows the Court to conclude that Juan Carlos Bayarri was subjected to ill-treatment that produced intense suffering. The beatings applied to the victim resulted in the perforation of his eardrum.76 In the domestic jurisdiction, it was established that torture was used repeatedly during three days, and that his captors threatened to harm his father, with whom he had a close relationship and whose whereabouts were unknown to him.77 This caused the victim severe mental suffering.78 The Court considers that all the foregoing constituted a violation of the right to humane treatment embodied in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Juan Carlos Bayarri. B) Obligation to initiate an investigation ex officio and immediately 88. The Court has stated that, pursuant to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the obligation to guarantee the rights established in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention entails the State’s obligation to investigate possible acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.79 This obligation to investigate is reinforced by the provisions of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the ICPPT, to which Argentina is a State Party (supra para. 23), which oblige the State to “take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their jurisdiction,” as well as “to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Moreover, according to the provisions of Article 8 of this Convention: If there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, the States Parties shall guarantee that their respective authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal action. 89. Since April 30, 1989, the date on which the said Inter-American Convention against Torture entered into force in Argentina, in accordance with its Article 22, the State has been required to comply with the obligations contained in this treaty. 75 Decision of August 25, 2005, delivered by Chamber VII of the National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of the Federal Capital (file of attachments to the application, attachment 4.7, folio 627). 76 Cf. expert appraisal of Dr. Eduardo Garré given during the public hearing, supra para. 7. 77 Cf. testimony of Juan Carlos Bayarri of January 8, 1992, before National Criminal Court of First Instance No. 13 of the Capital of the Argentine Republic (attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 3337 to 3338); expansion of the testimony rendered by Juan Carlos Bayarri on June 11, 1997, before National Criminal Court of First Instance No. 13 of the Capital of the Argentine Republic (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 4886 to 4897) and testimony of Juan Carlos Bayarri rendered during the public hearing before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, supra para. 7. 78 79 Expert appraisal of the psychologist Susana Estela Quiroga given during the public hearing, supra para. 7. Cf. Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 147; case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 30, para. 344; and case of Buenos Alves, supra note 70, para. 88.