her home reveal a contradiction in the statement of Ms. Atto Mendives that, following the search of J.’s domicile, she was taken directly to the DINCOTE (supra para. 92). 340. In sum, the Court finds that, taken as a whole, these factors create doubt as to the absolute denial by Ms. Atto Mendives that Ms. J. suffered any violence including sexual violence, at the time of her arrest. In addition, the Court notes that, taking into account the context of violence and sexual abuse that existed at the time of the facts, such a categorical denial by the witness that this occurred “in all the actions that [she] took part in as deputy terrorism prosecutor,” raises doubts about the truth of her assertions. C.2.5) The failure to investigate the facts 341. Under Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the obligation to ensure the rights recognized in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention entails the State’s duty to investigate possible acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 485 This obligation to investigate is reinforced by the provisions of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture that oblige the States “to take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their jurisdiction,” and also “to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” Also, according to Article 8 of that Convention, the States parties: shall guarantee that any person making an accusation of having been subjected to torture within their jurisdiction shall have the right to an impartial examination of his case. Likewise, if there is an accusation or well-founded 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 proceedings. 342. At the same time, following the entry into force for Peru of the Convention Belém do Pará (supra paras. 18, 19 and 37), the State was obliged to use due diligence to prevent, punish and eliminate violence against women. Pursuant to this, the Court has established in its case law that the provisions of Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará stipulate and complement the State’s obligations as regards compliance with the rights embodied in the American Convention, 486 such as the obligation to ensure the right recognized in Article 5 of the American Convention. In these cases, the State authorities must open, ex officio and promptly, a serious, impartial and effective investigation that examines possible acts that constitute violence against women, 487 including sexual violence. This obligation to investigate must take into account the duty of society to reject violence against women and the obligations of the State to eliminate it and to ensure that the victims can have confidence in the State institutions created to protect them. 488 343. In addition, in cases where the victims allege that they have been tortured while in the State’s custody, the Court has indicated that the State is responsible, in its capacity as guarantor of the rights embodied in the Convention, for respecting the right to personal integrity of every individual in its custody. 489 Furthermore, the Court’s case law has indicated that whenever a person is deprived of liberty in a normal state of health and subsequently appears with health problems, 485 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 147, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 274. 486 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 346, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 275. 487 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 378, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 275. 488 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 193, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 275. 489 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, supra, para. 99; and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 188. 101