26 ruled that it is clear that the victims of such practices suffer from abridgements of their physical integrity in 122 all its dimensions. 102. In the case at hand, in addition to the physical and mental suffering inherent to a forced disappearance, the IACHR has established that Jeremías Osorio was the target of deliberate acts of violence during his transfer by Army personnel on April 30, 1991. Those facts must therefore be assessed to determine whether they constitute torture under the terms of the ban on that practice enshrined in Article 5.2 of the Convention. 103. According to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court, the IACPPT is a part of the Inter-American corpus iuris that must be used to establish the content and scope of the general provision 123 contained in Article 5.2 of the Convention. Article 2 of the IACPPT defines torture as: Any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish. 104. In light of the precedents set by the Commission and the Inter-American Court, for an action to constitute torture it must be: (a) an intentional act, (b) which causes severe physical or mental 124 suffering, and (c) committed with a given purpose or aim. The Court has ruled that “threats and real danger of submitting a person to physical injuries produces, in certain circumstances, a moral anguish of 125 such degree that it may be considered psychological torture.” Similarly, the Court has ruled that people deprived of freedom are in a situation of particular vulnerability, and so the competent authorities are obliged to adopt measures to protect their physical integrity and the dignity inherent to all human 126 beings. In addition, it has held that the State may be held responsible for torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment if the authorities fail to conduct a rigorous investigation into such acts committed 127 against people held in its custody. 105. The IACHR concluded that Jeremias Osorio was aggressively transferred to the Cajatambo Counter-subversive Base in the morning of April 30, 1991, after being held incommunicado at the Nunumia’s school since nighttime of April 28, 1991. The IACHR also concluded that the Army members who detained the victim publicly accused him of being a terrorist and that after his removal from the Nunumia’s school in the morning of April 30, 1991, he was not allowed to speak to his brother, partner and mother, who were advised by peasants of the zone to say farewell to Mr. Jeremías Osorio. According to the established facts and to the information published by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 122 I/A Court H. R., Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 27, 2008, Series C No. 191, para. 58. 123 I/A Court H. R., Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, Judgment of September 7, 2004, Series C No. 114, para. 145. 124 IACHR, Report No. 5/96, Case 10.970, Merits, Raquel Martín Mejía, Peru, March 1, 1996, Section 3, Analysis, available at www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/95span/cap.III.peru10.970.htm. I/A Court H. R., Case of Bueno Alves, Judgment of May 11, 2007, Series C No. 164, para. 79. 125 I/A Court H. R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 25, 2006, Series C No. 160, para. 272; Case of Baldeón García, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of April 6, 2006, Series C No. 147, para. 119; Case of Tibi, Judgment of September 7, 2004, Series C No. 114, para. 147; and Case of Maritza Urrutia, Judgment of November 27, 2003, Series C No. 103, para. 92. 126 See also: U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7 at 176 (1992), Human Rights Committee, General Comment 21, para. 3; ECHR, Case of Dzieciak v. Poland, Application No. 77766/01, Judgment of December 9, 2008; ECHR, Case of Slimani v. France, Application No. 57671/00, Judgment of July 27, 2004, para. 28. 127 I/A Court H. R., Case of Baldeón García, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of April 6, 2006, Series C No. 147, para. 120; and The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.), Judgment of November 19, 1999, Series C No. 63, para. 170. Similarly, see: ECHR, Yavuz v. Turkey, Judgment of January 10, 2006, App. No. 67137/01, para. 38; ECHR, Aksoy v. Turkey, Judgment of December 18, 1996, App. No. 100/1995/606/694, paras. 61 and 62; and ECHR, Tomasi v. France, Judgment of August 27, 1992, Series A No. 241-A, paras. 108 to 111.