or mental suffering, and iii) is committed for any purpose or objective. 166 Article 6 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture establishes the obligation of the States Parties to “take effective measures to prevent and punish” such conducts “within their jurisdiction.” This reflects the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in international law. 167 Likewise, under Article 8 of the Convention States have an obligation to guarantee that “any person making an accusation of having been subjected to torture within their jurisdiction shall have the right to an impartial examination of his case,” and, when there is an accusation or wellgrounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction,” to guarantee that their respective authorities “will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal process.” 93. It should also be noted that, under the terms of Article 5(2) of the American Convention, all persons deprived of their liberty are to be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and the State must guarantee their right to life and personal integrity. In particular, the Court has ruled that, in cases in which the victims allege that they have been tortured while in the custody of the State, the State, in its capacity of guarantor of the rights recognized in the Convention, is responsible for observing the right to personal integrity of every individual in its custody. Furthermore, in its case law the Court has indicated that whenever an individual is deprived of liberty in normal health and subsequently displays health problems, the State must provide a satisfactory and credible explanation for that situation. 168 Thus, a presumption exists that the State is responsible for any injuries suffered by a person who has been in the custody of state agents. 169 In such cases, the State has the obligation to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of what happened and to refute the allegations of its responsibility with satisfactory probative elements. 170 B.2 Application of the standards to the specific case 94. Preliminarily, the Court notes that the State argued that it was impossible for it to refer to the alleged acts of torture committed against Mr. López, since, as yet there is no unappealable judgment establishing the existence of a punishable act or the criminal responsibility of any specific person. The State added that the Court should not rule on the existence or otherwise of the acts of torture attributed to the accused in the criminal proceedings, since such a ruling “could influence or bias the judges in reaching decisions, thereby undermining the guarantee of the principle of presumption of innocence that should apply in all proceedings.” The Court recalls that international human rights jurisdiction should not be confused with criminal jurisdiction, since the States do not appear before the Court as defendants in a criminal action. The purpose of international human rights law is not to punish those individuals who are guilty of human rights violations, but rather to protect the victims and to provide for the reparation of the harm Cf. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina, supra, para. 79, and Members and Militants of the Unión Patriótica v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 27, 2022. Series C No. 455, para. 371. 167 Cf. Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 250. 168 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, supra, paras. 99 and 100, and Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 363, para. 88. 169 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, paras. 95 and 170, and Case of Valencia Campos et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 224. 170 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, para. 111, and Case of Valencia Campos et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 224. 166 29