16 representatives qualified said events as “torture.” the State referred to the treatment suffered by Notwithstanding such acknowledgment, which at excuse the Court from further analysis, the Court issues of law. Indeed, in its answer to the application, the alleged victim as “acts of torture.” other stages of the proceedings would will proceed to examine the appropriate 76. Firstly, the Court reasserts its case law in the sense that International Human Rights Law strictly prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. The absolute prohibition of torture, both physical and psychological, is currently part of the domain of the international jus cogens. Said prohibition remains valid even under the most difficult circumstances, such as war, threat of war, the fight against terrorism and other crimes, state of siege, or a state of emergency, civil commotion or domestic conflict, suspension of constitutional guarantees, domestic political instability or other public emergencies or catastrophes.37 77. Various universal38 and regional39 instruments set forth said prohibition and enshrine the right of all human beings not to be tortured. Similarly, various international instruments enshrine this right and reaffirm that prohibition,40 including international humanitarian law.41 78. Now, in order to define the concept of “torture” in the light of the provisions of Article 5(2) of the American Convention, the Court should consider the definition provided in the first part of Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter “ICPPT”),42 and the various definitions contained in some of the instruments mentioned in the paragraph above. This is particularly important for the Court as, in accordance with its case law, “the interpretation of a treaty must take into account not only 37 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison, supra note 14, para. 271; Case of Baldeón-García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 117, and Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 222. 38 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 7; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 2; Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 37, and International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migratory workers and the members of their families relatives, Article 10. 39 Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, Article 2; African Charter on the Rights of Men and of People, Article 5; African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, Article 16; Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women (Convención de Belém do Pará), Article 4, and European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Freedoms, Article 3. 40 Set of principles for the protection of all individuals subject to any form of detention or imprisonment, Principle 6; Code of conduct for law enforcement officers, Article 5; UN Rules on Juveniles Deprived of the Liberty, Rule 87(a); Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not Nationals of the Country in which they Live, Article 6; Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Rules of Beijing), Rule 17(3); Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict, Article 4, and Guidelines on the European Council of Ministers on human rights and the fight against terrorism, Guideline IV. 41 Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions; Geneva Convention governing war prisoners (Convention III), Articles 49, 52, 87, 89, and 97; Geneve Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war (Convention IV), Articles 40, 51, 95, 96, 100 and 119; Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, on protection of victims in international armed conflict (Protocol I), Article 75(2)(ii), and Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, on protection of victims of non-international armed conflict (Protocol II), Article 4(2)(a). 42 Article 2 of the ICPPT, in its relevant part, sets forth that: For the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act intentionally performed, whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted upon a person for the purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose […].