of post-traumatic stress associated with his deprivations of liberty. 132 A previous psychological evaluation, performed by state authorities in 2013, had concluded that Mr. Cortez showed “evidence of suffering.” 133 154. The circumstances mentioned arose in the context of unlawful actions, during which the victim was subject to an authority who lacked jurisdiction. Moreover, with respect to the second detention, the State argued that on July 14, 1997, a medical certificate was issued that established that Mr. Cortez showed no signs of impairment or physical trauma. However, the solitary confinement continued for several days after that certificate was issued. As indicated above (supra para. 152), prolonged solitary confinement and isolation constitute cruel and inhuman punishment. 155. Accordingly, the Court concludes that during the two deprivations of liberty suffered by Mr. Cortez in 1997, his personal integrity was harmed. Furthermore, during the 17 or 19 days of Mr. Cortez’s solitary confinement during his second detention, he suffered mistreatment in violation of Article 5(2) of the Convention. 156. Regarding the torture alleged by the representatives in their final written arguments (supra footnote 124), it is important to recall that torture constitutes a particularly heinous attack on the dignity of a human being because the perpetrator intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on a powerless victim for a specific purpose, or uses methods designed to annul their personality or diminish their physical or mental capacity to achieve a specific purpose. 134 The Court holds that the facts established in this case, as well as the documentary and expert evidence, do not meet the requirements for drawing that conclusion. 157. In accordance with the above, the State is responsible for violating Mr. Cortez Espinoza's right to personal integrity, having violated Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1). 158. It should be noted that it is not appropriate to analyze the arguments made by the representatives on harm to Mr. Cortez's personal integrity due to the effects of a “series of violations” of the rights of the victim (supra para. 148). Those arguments, in part, reiterate allegations of violations of rights other than personal integrity. They also refer to harmful effects of those violations, which should be analyzed in relation to any measures of reparation that might be appropriate. VIII.4 RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY 135 A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 132 9). Cf. Oral statement by expert witness Pablo Geovanny Bermúdez Aguinaga at the public hearing (supra para. 133 National Police of Ecuador. National Directorate of Judicial Police and Investigations. Forensic Psychological Report No. 2013-892. July of 2013 (evidence file, annex 6 to the Merits Report, folios 280–283). In its final written arguments, the State noted that in its view, the conclusions of the expert witness Bermúdez Aguinaga contradict those of this forensic report. It also disputed the suitability of Bermúdez Aguinaga as an expert witness. The foregoing makes clear that the expert and documentary evidence noted above are taken into consideration as a complement to the conclusion to which this Court has arrived, and that, where relevant, the two types of evidence are in agreement as regards the suffering experienced by Mr. Cortez due to the facts of the case. 134 Cf. Case of Guzmán Albarracín et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2020. Series C No. 405, para. 152. 135 Article 21 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 34