49 As a result, the victim’s detention in incommunicado conditions initially and of the uncertainty and irregularity of it, in the context above mentioned would have provoked to Mr. Galindo suffering and distress. 216. The European Court of Human Rights has established that the mere possibility of the commission of one of the acts prohibited in Article 3 of the European Convention is sufficient to consider that said article has been violated, although the risk must be real and imminent. In line with this, to threaten someone with torture may constitute, in certain circumstances, at least “inhuman treatment.” That same Tribunal has decided that, for purposes of determining whether Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been violated, not 172 only physical suffering, but also moral anguish, must be considered. 217. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has stated that: The violation of the right to physical and psychological integrity of persons is a category of violation that has several gradations and embraces treatment ranging from torture to other types of humiliation or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment with varying degrees of physical and psychological effects caused by endogenous and exogenous factors which must be proven in each specific situation. The European Court of Human Rights has declared that, even in the absence of physical injuries, psychological and moral suffering, accompanied by psychic disturbance during questioning, may be deemed inhuman treatment. The degrading aspect is characterized by the fear, anxiety and inferiority induced for the purpose of humiliating and degrading the victim and breaking his physical and moral resistance. That situation is exacerbated by the vulnerability of a person who is unlawfully detained. Any use of force that is not strictly necessary to ensure proper behavior on the part of the detainee constitutes an assault on the dignity of the person, in violation of Article 5 of the American Convention. The exigencies of the investigation and the undeniable difficulties encountered in the anti-terrorist struggle must not be allowed to restrict the protection of a 173 person's right to physical integrity. 218. Therefore, given the set of circumstances surrounding this case and the context in which the events occurred, the Commission considers that the method and circumstances of Mr. Galindo Cárdenas’ detention in violation of article 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5) and 7(6) of the American Convention, can be classified as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Mr. Galindo was deprived of his liberty for 31 days in a place not authorized by law for detention and without judicial control, in order to break down his mental resistance to applying for the Repentance Law and which had the effect of causing him to resign his position as Provisional Magistrate on the Huánuco-Pasco Superior Court. The Commission therefore finds that the State violated, to the detriment of Mr. Galindo Cárdenas, article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. D. Freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws (Article 9 of the American Convention) 219. Article 9 of the American Convention reads as follows: No one shall be convicted of any act or omission that did not constitute a criminal offense, under the applicable law, at the time it was committed. A heavier penalty shall not be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offense was committed. If subsequent to the commission of the offense the law provides for the imposition of a lighter punishment, the guilty person shall benefit therefrom. 220. Under Article 1(1) of the American Convention, The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, 172 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 102; Eur. Court HR, Campbell v. Cosans, Judgment of 25 February 1982, Series A Vol. 48, para. 26. 173 I/A Court H.R., Case of Loayza-Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 57; Eur. Cour H.R., Case of Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, para. 167; Eur. Court HR, Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, para. 36.