10 organizations, laws, decrees and other norms that were in force at the date of the allegations of the parties. 44. In the following section, the IACHR will pronounce on A) the general context in which the events of the present case took place; B) the facts that have been proven; and C) the resulting responsibility of the State of Peru. A. Context 45. In December of 2002, the Peruvian Ombudsman published Report No. 42 on “The right to life and personal integrity in the context of military service in Peru,” which covers the period between April 1998 and August 2002 and is based on the study of 174 reports or ex oficio interventions for deaths and alleged acts of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment related to the performance of military service.2 The Report states that the cases brought to the attention of the Ombudsman primarily occurred in units of the Peruvian Army at the national level,3 and that the circumstances in which they some cases occurred were not directly related to military service, and that others occurred during military service.4 When the torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment was linked with the key activities of military service, the Report indicates that the acts manifested themselves in physical aggressions, excessive physical exercises and psychological abuse, because they were considered part of the disciplinary power. 46. The Report states that this practice was deeply rooted and corresponded to the way in which military service was performed,5 because it was based on an erroneous interpretation of military discipline. In this sense, the Report sustains that Article 2(a) of the Rules of the Interior Service of the Army No. 34-5 states that “every superior officer has the right to punish a lower-ranking officer in any circumstance of time and place,” and that in the event that the latter “protests or asks the superior for explanations as a result of acts of service or punishment that have been imposed,” this can be considered as the offense of insulting a superior officer, in accordance with Article 147 of the Code of Military Justice.6 Similarly, the Ombudsman’s Report indicates that from the testimonies collected, one can deduce that “during the performance of military service, the conscripts are placed in a situation of extreme discipline that could be likened to psychological abuse.”7 47. In the year 2000, Ombudsman Resolution No. 58-2000-DP stated that “This situation of rigorous discipline, unlimited obedience, inflexible hierarchy and lack of communication with the 2 Annex 34. Ombudsman’s Report No. 42, “The right to life and personal integrity in the context of the performance of military service in Peru,” p. 8. 3 Annex 34. Ombudsman’s Report No. 42, “The right to life and personal integrity in the context of the performance of military service in Peru,” pp. 14-15. 4 Annex 34. Ombudsman’s Report No. 42, “The right to life and personal integrity in the context of the performance of military service in Peru,” pp. 44-45. 5 Annex 34. Ombudsman’s Report No. 42, “The right to life and personal integrity in the context of the performance of military service in Peru,” p. 45. 6 Annex 34. Ombudsman’s Report No. 42, “The right to life and personal integrity in the context of the performance of military service in Peru,” p. 49. 7 Annex 34. Ombudsman’s Report No. 42, “The right to life and personal integrity in the context of the performance of military service in Peru,” p. 136.