to rest on or adequate hygiene conditions, in isolation and incommunicado or with undue restrictions to the system of visits, constitutes a violation of the right to humane treatment. 220 193. Also, while Article 5(1) of the Convention establishes in general terms the right to personal integrity –physical as well as psychological and moral–, Article 5(2) establishes more specifically the absolute prohibition of subjecting anyone to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Court has pointed out that the violation of a person’s right to physical and psychological integrity has different connotations of degree, and that it ranges from torture to other types of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or abuse, whose physical and mental consequences vary in intensity according to endogenous and exogenous factors of the person (duration of the treatment, age, sex, health, context, vulnerability, among others) that must be analyzed in each specific situation. The Court also recalls that the absolute prohibition of torture, both physical and psychological, is now part of international jus cogens. 221 194. Since Article 5(2) of the American Convention does not specify what should be understood as “torture,” the Court has had recourse to Article 2 of the IACPPT, as well as to other definitions contained in international instruments that prohibit torture, to arrive at the elements that constitute torture. Based on these instruments, it has determined that torture is present when the ill-treatment: a) is intentional; b) causes severe physical or mental suffering, and c) is committed with any objective or purpose. 222 195. The Court has also reiterated that, in accordance with the American Convention, the States Parties must provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), all within the general obligation of the States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons under their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)). 223 196. The Court has clarified that there is access to justice when the State guarantees, within a reasonable time, the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin to have all the measures carried out to learn the truth of what happened and, if appropriate, to punish those possibly responsible. 224 In this regard, the Court recalls that Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention also establish the right to obtain a response to the claims and petitions submitted to the judicial authorities, since the effectiveness of the remedy implies a positive obligation to provide a response within a reasonable period of time. 225 Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, supra, para. 150; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 315: Case of Hernández v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and cost. Judgment of November 22, 2019. Series C No. 395, para. 60, and Case of Dial et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra, para. 73. 220 221 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 92; Case of Bedoya v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2021. Series C No. 431, para. 100, and Case of Dial et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra, para. 63. Cf. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 79, and Case of Bedoya v. Colombia, supra, para. 101. 222 223 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 91; Case of Digna Ochoa and Family Members v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2021. Series C No. 447, para. 98, and Case of Aroca Palma et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 103. 224 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114, Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus and their Families v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 15, 2020. Series C No. 407, para. 217, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2022. Series C No. 454, para. 83. 225 Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 57; Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus and their Families v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 218, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 83. -52-