171. In sum, the Commission concludes that the Venezuelan State was or should have been aware that Linda Loaiza López faced a real and imminent situation of risk yet it did not take any measures –starting from when it should have been aware to the moment of her rescue- to protect her from the risk she was facing or prevent it from materializing. Through this absolute omission, the Venezuelan State exposed Linda Loaiza López to be victim of grave violations of her personal integrity, personal liberty, privacy, dignity and autonomy, and her right to live a life free of violence and discrimination. This conclusion is directly related to the attribution of the responsibility of the Venezuelan State in this case. Now, the Commission will assess the evidence and the legal categorization of the violations that took place against Linda Loaiza López, and then will conclude on the international responsibility of the State for such violations. 1.2. Analysis on the violations suffered by Linda Loaiza López and conclusion on the attribution of responsibility 1.2.1. General considerations on the rights involved, violence against women, and sexual violence 172. Article 5(1) of the Convention enshrines in general terms the right to humane treatment, both physical and moral; meanwhile, in its first subparagraph, Article 5(2) specifically enshrines the nonrevocable right of all individuals to not be subjected to any form of torture. The case law of the interAmerican system has repeatedly found that torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment are strictly prohibited under international human rights law.239 173. Article 7 of the American Convention establishes as a general rule240 that “every person has the right to personal liberty and security,” meaning that States have a duty to “prevent the liberty of the individual being violated by the actions of public officials and private third parties, and must also investigate and punish acts that violate this right.”241 174. Also, Article 11 of the Convention establishes that all people have the right to have their honor respected and their dignity recognized, which includes protection of privacy.242Regarding this, the Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American Court”) have establish that this right includes recognition of the existence of a personal realm that should be exempt and immune from abusive or arbitrary invasions or attacks from third parties or government authorities.243It has also found that the concept of personal life “is a wide-ranging term, which cannot be defined exhaustively, but includes, among other protected forums, sexual life, and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings”244 239 Inter-American Court, Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 304; Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Judgment C No. 260, para. 173, and Inter-American Court, Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 95. 240 Inter-American Court, Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 125. 241 Inter-American Court. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 247. 242 Inter-American Court, Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006, Series C No. 148, para. 193, and Inter-American Court. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment dated January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193. para. 55. 243 IACHR. Report 5/96. Case 10,970. Peru. Raquel Martín de Mejía. March 1, 1996; Inter-American Court, Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 127, and Inter-American Court. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 95. 244 Inter-American Court. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 129 citing: ECHR, Case of Niemietz v. Germany, Judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. No. 13710/88. para. 29, and Case of Peck v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 28 January 2003, App. No. 44647/98. para. 57; ECHR, Case of Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 22 October 1981, App. No. 7525/76. para. 41, and ECHR, Case of X and Y v. the Netherlands, Judgment of 26 March 1985, App. No. 8978/80. para. 22.