planned together with a Police General. 222 There is also the statement of another of the perpetrators of the kidnapping who stated that one of the masterminds behind the kidnapping had met with the Police to plan it. 223 Additionally, the Court highlights the statements of Ms. Bedoya to the effect that there were "uniformed men" who participated in her kidnapping. 224 98. In sum, after analyzing the arguments of the parties and the Commission, as well as the evidence provided to the Court, the Court notes the existence of serious, specific, and consistent evidence of State participation in the facts of May 25, 2000, including: a) the delays in allowing Ms. Bedoya access to the prison, together with the strange attitude of the guard at the entrance, who left Ms. Bedoya alone at the door at the time of the kidnapping, despite the fact he was aware of her visit; b) the prior acquiescence of the Police to the visit—that is, the Police were fully aware of Ms. Bedoya was at the prison door at that point in time; c) the fact that every prison door would logically be a place that is particularly heavily guarded, especially in the days following an act of singular violence within the prison; and d) the presence of a patrol at the prison entrance and of uniformed individuals during the kidnapping, as Ms. Bedoya indicated. This evidence is even more serious considering that the victim had been investigating crimes committed in a context of organized crime with the intervention of officials that involved kidnappings and transfer of hostages. 99. All of the foregoing leads this Court to the conclusion that the State is internationally responsible, in breach of its duty to respect, for the interception and kidnapping of Ms. Bedoya on May 25, 2000, in violation of Article 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof and articles 7(a) and 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 100. Additionally, the Court notes that, while Ms. Bedoya was kidnapped, she was subjected to serious verbal and physical attacks, and was also raped by her kidnappers. Although Article 5(1) of the Convention establishes the general terms of the right to personal integrity—both physical, mental and moral—Article 5(2) establishes, more specifically, the absolute prohibition of subjecting someone to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. This Court has indicated that the violation of a person’s right to physical and psychological integrity has different connotations of degree and ranges from torture to other types of humiliation or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the physical and psychological aftereffects of which vary in intensity based on factors that are endogenous and exogenous to the individual (such as duration of the treatment, age, sex, health, context and vulnerability) that must be analyzed in each specific situation. 225 The Court recalls that the absolute prohibition of torture, both physical and psychological, is currently part of the domain of the international jus cogens. 226 101. Regarding sexual violence and rape, this Court’s case law has recognized that these forms of sexual violence can constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and even acts of torture if the 222 Cf. Certification of copies of the Alejandro Cárdenas Orozco’s account of September 12, 2011. File 807, Volume 8 (evidence file, folio 43901). 223 Cf. Preliminary statement of Jesús Emiro Pereira Rivera, of December 12, 2011. File number 807, Volume 9 (evidence file, folio 44267 to 44270). Also see Report No. 571005 on the interview with Oscar Mauricio Tarazona González, dated November 12, 2010. File number 807, Volume 4 (evidence file, folios 42746 to 42747), and Preliminary statement of A.L., of February 27, 2015, ad. 807, Volume 9, (evidence file, folios 1209 and 1210). 224 Cf. Statement from Jineth Bedoya Lima given at the public hearing held on March 15, 22, and 23, 2021 within the framework of the 140th regular sessions. Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of December 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 57, and Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 12, 2020. Series C No. 402, para. 159. 225 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 92, and Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 140. 226 39