highlighted the transcendental role that discrimination plays when analyzing violations of women's human rights and how it is expressed through torture and abuse from a gender perspective. 239 In this regard, the Court finds that her status as a woman exposed her to a specific and differentiated risk that materialized in the aforementioned rape. Added to all this is the fact that Ms. Bedoya came to believe "they were going to kill her at any moment," 240 which undoubtedly caused a significant degree of distress. For this Court, it is clear that all the acts of violence to which Ms. Bedoya was subjected caused her great suffering and anguish, resulting in, among other things, the development of post-traumatic stress disorder with “symptoms both acute and chronic” 241 leaving her “irreparably changed.” 242 103. Additionally, it appears from the evidence received that the aggressors’ aim was to punish her for her journalistic activity. Indeed, the Court notes that all during the kidnapping, Ms. Bedoya was verbally attacked on numerous occasions, with the aggressors making explicit reference to her membership in the journalism profession, saying things like "piece of shit journalists who have fucked up this country, it’s your fault the country is like this,” saying journalists were "paid by the guerrillas” 243 and that they were going to “teach them a lesson so they quit fucking around and destroying the country.” 244 When the journalist asked them who had sent them, one of them told her that "they had been sent to clean up all the bullshit from the media." 245 In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the kidnapping and subsequent acts of violence directed against Ms. Bedoya were intentional and had the clear purpose of punishing, intimidating, and, in short, silencing her journalism. 104. The Court therefore finds that Ms. Bedoya was subjected to acts of physical, sexual, and psychological torture that could not have been carried out without the acquiescence and collaboration of the State, or at least with its tolerance. Consequently, in line with its settled case law on the matter, 246 the Court finds that the State also violated articles 5(2) and 11 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations contained in Article 1(1) of the same instrument, articles 7(a) and 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and articles 1 and 6 of the ICPPT. para. 186. 239 Cf. Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment dated November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329, para. 263, citing the UN, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan E. Méndez, A/HRC/31/57, January 5, 2016, paras. 5 and 9, and Case of Lopez Soto et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 188. 240 Cf. Expansion of statement made by Jineth Bedoya Lima before the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation, May 30, 2000 (evidence file, folio 109). 241 Cf. Fifth Criminal Court of the Bogotá Specialized Circuit, Judgment of February 24, 2016 (evidence file, folio 24062). 242 Cf. Expert opinion given before a notary public by Jairo Enrique Cortes Pinzón, March 5, 2021 (evidence file, folio 40048). 243 Cf. Expansion of statement made by Jineth Bedoya Lima before the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation, May 30, 2000 (evidence file, folio 101). 244 Cf. Expansion of statement made by Jineth Bedoya Lima before the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation, May 30, 2000 (evidence file, folio 104). 245 Cf. Expansion of statement made by Jineth Bedoya Lima before the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation, May 30, 2000 (evidence file, folio 102). 246 The Court recalls that, in cases involving some form of sexual violence, it has been specified that violations of personal integrity involve impact on the private lives of persons, protected by Article 11 of the Convention, which covers persons sex lives or sexuality. Thus, sexual violence violates essential values and aspects of a person’s privacy, amounting to an intrusion in their sexual life and an annulment of their right to decide freely with whom to have intimate relations, causing them to lose total control over these most personal and intimate decisions, and over their basic bodily functions. Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 129; Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 367, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 371, para. 179. 41