peremptory norm of international law creating obligations erga omnes."107 For its part, the Court has repeatedly held that "torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment are strictly prohibited by international human rights law. The absolute prohibition of torture, both physical and mental, is currently part of the international jus cogens."108 101. In accordance with the inter-American system’s jurisprudence, for an act to constitute torture, the following three elements must exist: (i) An intentional act committed by an agent of the State or with his authorization or acquiescence; (ii) which causes severe physical or mental suffering; (iii) for a specific purpose or aim.109 102. The Commission recalls that in many cases like the one at hand when there are allegations of torture, the individual generally has no way to prove the violence inflicted on them.110 According to the petitioners, Mr. Montesinos was: (i) threatened while providing one of his statements; (ii) held in a cell measuring 11m2 with 13 other individuals; (iii) beaten by police officers; (iv) held incommunicado for eight days; and (v) held upon arrest in the prison conditions that were deplorable. 103. As for official medical reports on Mr. Montesinos’ physical and mental health, there is only one document from the Medical Department of the National Police dated July 27, 1992, which states that Mr. Montesinos underwent a medical examination the day he was arrested and that the result was “without observations.” In said document no details are provided on how this examination was performed. Moreover, the Commission notes that the police performed this exam; the same police, who, according to Mr. Montesinos, were the authorities who mistreated him. The Commission has no information regarding other medical exams Mr. Montesinos’ underwent. 104. The IACHR notes that in the case Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador the Inter-American Court considered that the victim was subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment given that he: (i) was held incommunicado; (ii) suffered due to the impossibility of having an attorney or seeing his family; (iii) was in a cell that measured 15 m2 with 16 other individuals, without the necessary sanitary conditions; and (iv) was beaten and threatened during his detention. 105. The Commission further notes that Mr. Montesinos was detained together with Mr. Suárez Rosero in the framework of the same operation and that their allegations are similar, even as regards being held incommunicado. As analyzed in the prior section, Ecuador failed to prove that this did not happen by submitting documentation that by its nature is in the hands of the State. What is more, the State failed to open any investigation regarding Mr. Montesinos accusations, although his first habeas corpus appeal alleged he was subjected to beatings and threats to force him to sign his statements. 106. In keeping with the available information, and considering the State’s serious omissions in failing to perform a serious and thorough medical examination of Mr. Montesinos, even when he was transferred from one correctional center to another, as well as the absence of any investigation on reports of torture, the Commission considers that the victim was subjected, at the very least, to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment during the initial stage of his detention. 107 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/SER.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002. Citing. IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum Seekers Within the Canadian Refugee Determination System, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, Doc. 40 rev., February 28, 2000, paragraph 118. 108 I/A Court H.R. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, paragraph 76; I/A Court H.R. Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paragraph 271; and I/A Court H.R. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, paragraph 117. 109 IACHR, Report No. 5/96, Case 10.970, Merits, Raquel Martin Mejía, Peru, March 1, 1996, section 3; and I/A Court H.R. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, paragraph 79. 110 IACHR, Report No. 82/13, Case 12.679, Merits, José Agapito Ruano Torres and Family. El Salvador, November 4, 2013, paragraph 162. I/A Court H.R. Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, paragraph 128. 19