19 85. Moreover, the experts concluded that the disorders caused by such mistreatment prevented and still prevent Mr. Bueno-Alves from “carrying out his daily activities,” and require ongoing psychiatric and psychological treatment “for life.”50 86. Based on the foregoing considerations and in view of the acknowledgment made by the State (supra paras. 19, 22, 23, and 26 to 29), the Court considers that the events alleged by the Commission and the representative, which have been proven in the instant case, amounted to torture to the detriment of Mr. Bueno-Alves, thus entailing a violation by the State of the right enshrined in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof to the detriment of the above-mentioned individual. 87. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court agrees with the arguments of the State in its answer to the application in that “the acts of torture committed against Mr. Bueno-Alves are under the protection […] of the [American] Convention; however, this does not mean that said acts should be classified per se as a crime against humanity,” as alleged by the victim’s representative, since such acts were not part of a generalized or systematic attack against the civilian population.51 * * * 88. As regards the obligation to guarantee the right enshrined in Article 5 of the American Convention, the Court pointed out that said obligation embodies the duty of the State to investigate possible acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.52 The duty to investigate is reinforced through the provisions of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the ICPPT, which set forth that the State is bound to “take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within its jurisdiction,” and “prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” Moreover, pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the 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 process. 89. In the same sense, the Court has previously stated that: in the light of the general obligation to guarantee all persons under their jurisdiction the human rights enshrined in the Convention, established in Article 1(1) of the same, along with the right to humane treatment pursuant to Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of said treaty, there is a state obligation to start ex officio and immediately an effective investigation that allows it to identify, prosecute, and punish the responsible parties, when there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed.53 50 Cf. Expert’s report (affidavit) of doctors Ravioli, Taragano, Nievas, and Schlenker (record on the merits, Volume III, folios 1063 and 1065). 51 The Inter-American Court has held that crimes against humanity include “the commission of inhuman acts, […] committed in a context of generalized or systematic attacks against civilians.” (Cf. Case of AlmonacidArellano et al., supra note 16, para. 96). 52 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison, supra note 14, para. 344; Case of Vargas-Areco, supra note 14, para. 78; and Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 16, para. 147. 53 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison, supra note 14, para. 345; Case of Vargas-Areco, supra note 14, para. 79, and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, para. 54.