village of El Mozote, where they raped them and then murdered them.”208 Furthermore, even though it was not included among the proven facts in the merits report, Tutela Legal del Arzobispado determined in its report 209 that rape had also been committed in the canton of La Joya, and the State must investigate this. 164. In this regard, the Court reiterates that it is evident that rape is a particular type of violence that is generally characterized by occurring in the absence of anyone other than the victim and the aggressor or aggressors.210 The Court underscores the context in which the rape acknowledged by the State was perpetrated; that is, during a military operation in which the women were under the complete control of State agents and in a situation of absolute defenselessness. Moreover, reaching a different conclusion would allow the State to shield itself behind the situation of impunity in the criminal investigation of the events of this case, in order to waive its responsibility for the violation of Article 5 of the Convention.211 165. The Court considers that the severe suffering of the victim is inherent in rape and that, in general, like torture, rape seeks, among other aspects, to intimidate, degrade, humiliate, punish or control the person who endures it.212 In order to characterize a rape as torture, it is necessary to analyze the intent, the severity of the suffering and the purpose of the act, taking into consideration the specific circumstances of each case.213 Thus, several international bodies have recognized that, during armed conflicts, women and children face specific situations that affect their human rights, such as rape, which is frequently used as a symbolic means of humiliating the opposing party or as a means of punishment and repression.214 The use of the State’s power to violate the rights of women in an internal conflict, in addition to affecting them directly, may be intended to produce an effect on society, and send a message or teach a lesson.215 In particular, rape constitutes a paradigmatic form of violence against women, the consequences of which even exceed the person who is the victim.216 166. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 11 of the American Convention, based on the same facts, the Court has already stipulated that the content of this article includes, among other elements, the protection of privacy.217 The concept of privacy is a broad term that cannot 208 Complaint filed before the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera of Pedro Chicas Romero on October 26, 1990 (evidence file, tome III, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folio 1650). 209 Cf. Tutela Legal del Arzobispado de San Salvador, El Mozote. Lucha por la verdad y la justicia: Masacre a la Inocencia, San Salvador, El Salvador, 2008, pp. 57 and 93 (evidence file, tome VIII, annex 2 to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 5304 and 5320). See also, Witness statement made by Lucila Romero Martínez before the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera on January 24, 1991 (evidence file, tome III, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folios 1711 to 1713). 210 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 Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 89. 211 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 97, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, para. 104. 212 117. 213 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, para. 127, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, para. Cf. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, paras. 110 and 112. 214 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paras. 223 and 224. See also, Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General recommendation 19 “Violence against women,” U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 84, 29 January 1992, para. 16; Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Ms. Radica 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 (19972000).”U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2001/73, 23 January 2001. 215 Cf. Case of del Penal Miguel Castro Castro v. Peru, para. 224. 216 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, para. 119, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, para. 109. 217 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, para. 193, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 133. 52