- 76 - which would appear to indicate that the purpose was precisely that the other protesters saw or were aware of what happened to their women when they challenged the authority of the agents, under a male chauvinist concept of women as a possession or object to be dominated in order to crush the group they were trying to control. 204. Therefore, the Court concludes that, in this case, the police agents used the detained women’s bodies as instruments to transmit their message of repression and condemnation of the protest measures employed by the demonstrators. They objectified the women to humiliate, dominate and instill fear in the voices of dissent against their powers of command. Sexual violence was used as just one more weapon in the repression of the protest, as if, together with the tear gas and the anti-riot gear, it was merely an additional tactic to achieve the purpose of dispersing the protest and ensuring that the State’s authority was not challenged again. This type of conduct in the maintenance of public order, more than reprehensible, is absolutely unacceptable. Sexual violence has no place and should never be used as a way of controlling public order by the law enforcement agents of a State bound by the American Convention, the Convention of Belém do Pará and the Inter-American Convention against Torture to pursue “by all appropriate means and without delay, policies to prevent, punish and eradicate” violence against women. B.2.d Medical violence 205. Meanwhile, both the Commission and the representatives alleged specific violations of personal integrity, owing to the treatment received by the victims from the doctors when they arrived at the prison.303 In this regard, The Court notes that several of the victims underlined the denigrating treatment they received from the first doctors who attended them when they reached the prison. For example: (i) Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio recounted that the doctors refused to perform a gynecological examination because there was no gynecologist, and to record or report the rape, in addition to saying to her in a mocking way, “well, if you want, I will examine you, but I’m not a gynecologist”; (ii) Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno indicated that having to face the “violence of the doctors was really devastating,” because she told them that she required medical treatment owing to the sexual abuse and the doctors refused to treat her or examine her. She indicated that they stitched up her head without cleaning the wound or giving her an anesthetic, which caused her “really acute pain,” and that the doctors mocked her, and (iii) Claudia Hernández Martínez underscored that she was taken to the infirmary in the early morning hours, where she was mocked and insulted by one of the doctors who said to her: “I don’t believe that anyone touched you, fucking old radicals! Filth!” She added that the doctor did not perform a clinical examination and refused to provide her with gynecological treatment. She was then taken to see a forensic physician who also refused to provide her with any type of treatment despite her complaints (supra para. 104). 206. The Court has recognized how specific cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and even torture may occur in the sphere of the health care services. 304 It has also stressed the important In this regard, the Court notes that, according to the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts drafted by the UN International Law Commission, the internationally wrongful act may not only be attributed to any entity that is an organ of the State under its domestic law (Article 4), but also to any person or entity “empowered by the law of that State to exercise elements of the governmental authority, […] provided the person or entity is acting in that capacity in the particular instance” (Article 5). UN, General Assembly, Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, A/RES/56/83, January 28, 2002. 303 Cf. Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329, para. 263, and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350, paras. 174 to 177. See, similarly, UN, Report of the Special 304