45 114. This Court has already had the opportunity to apply and declare the responsibility of a State for violation of the Inter-American Convention against Torture.99 In the instant case, it will exercise its material competence to apply said Convention, which entered into force on February 28, 1987, and was ratified by Peru on March 28, 1991. Articles 1, 6 and 9 of said treaty place the States Party under the obligation to take all effective measures required to prevent and punish all acts of torture within their sphere of jurisdiction. 115. The facts in this case, intentionally carried out, inflicted grave physical and mental suffering on the alleged victims (supra paras. 67.e to 67.j). 116. Likewise, the components of the concept of torture set forth in Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture include when physical or mental suffering is inflicted on an individual, for whatever purpose.100 In general, in situations of massive human rights violations, the systematic use of torture has the aim of intimidating the population. 117. Therefore, the Court deems that as a whole the facts that have been pointed out, taking especially into account that the alleged victims were minors, constitute evident signs of torture, in light of the definition in Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, in violation of Article 5 of the American Convention, in combination with Article 1(1) of this same Convention, and of the obligations set forth in Articles 1, 6 and 9 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, to the detriment of Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri. 118. Regarding to the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations, this Court has pointed out, on previous occasions, that they may be, in turn, victims.101 In the sub judice case, violation of the right to psychological and moral integrity of the next of kin of Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri is a direct consequence of their unlawful and arbitrary detention on June 21, 1991; of the maltreatment and torture they suffered during their detention, and of the death of both approximately one hour after they were detained, as well as of officially presenting the facts as “a confrontation with subversives.” All this generated suffering and powerlessness of their immediate next of kin vis-à-vis the State authorities, for which reason, in this case, the next of kin can be considered the victims of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment,102 in violation of Article 5 of the American Convention. 99 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, para. 95; Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 68, para. 223; Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 26, para. 191; Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 68, paras. 248 to 252; and Case of the “Panel Blanca” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 136. 100 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, para. 91; and Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 26, para. 100. 101 See Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, para. 101; Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 68, para. 160; Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 26, para. 105; Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 68, paras. 175 and 176; and Case of Castillo Páez. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 59. 102 See Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, para. 101; Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 68, para. 162; and Case of Kurt v. Turkey, supra note 85, paras. 130-134.