130. The State indicated “its partial acknowledgement” of the violations of Articles 5 and 11 of the American Convention to the detriment of María Eustaquia Uscap Ivoy, given that, “since she was a surviving victim, the physical and emotional effects of the rape she suffered could transcend and persist in the temporal space over which the Court has jurisdiction.” A.2. Considerations of the Court 131. Based on the State’s acknowledgement of international responsibility (supra para. 17(b)), the Court will rule below on the effects on Mrs. Uscap Ivoy’s right to personal integrity and to privacy as a result of the rape she suffered. 132. With regard to Article 5 of the Convention, the Court has considered that rape is an extremely traumatic experience that has severe consequences and causes great physical and mental harm that leaves the victim “physically and emotionally humiliated,” a situation that is difficult to overcome with the passing of time, contrary to other traumatic experiences.209 Therefore, it can be understood that the severe suffering of the victim is inherent in rape, even when there is no evidence of physical injury or disease. Indeed, not all cases of rape result in body injury or disease. Women who are victims of rape also experience severe psychological and even social harm and aftereffects.210 The Court has also established that, in certain circumstances, rape can also constitute a form of torture of the victim.211 133. In addition, the Court has indicated that Article 11 of the American Convention, entitled “Right to Privacy” includes the protection of honor and dignity;212 and, furthermore, the concept of privacy includes, among other protected areas, a person’s sexual life.213 134. In this regard, the body of evidence includes a judgment issued on May 28, 2008, by the Sentencing Court for Crime, Drug-trafficking and Offenses against the Environment of the department of Baja Verapaz, Salamá, which grants probative value to an oral statement made by Mrs. Uscap Ivoy. Among other matters, Mrs. Uscap Ivoy indicated on that occasion that she had been raped during the massacre that occurred in Pacoxom.214 Thus, from the facts of the present case, it can be concluded that Mrs. Uscap Ivoy was the victim of rape by patrollers and soldiers on several occasions, while still a minor (supra para. 77). In addition, in an affidavit prepared for this Court, Mrs. Uscap Ivoy stated that “[w]hat they did to [her] is not a lie; it hurt, and that was why [she] became involved in seeking justice in 209 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 311, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 114. ECHR, Case of Aydin v. Turkey (No. 57/1996/676/866), Judgment of 25 September 1997, para. 83. 210 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 124, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 114. 211 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 128, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 118. 212 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, para. 193, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 162. 213 Cf. ECHR, Case of Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 22 October 1981, App. No. 7525/76, para. 41, and ECHR, Case of X and Y v. the Netherlands, Judgment of 26 March 1985, App. No. 8978/80, para. 22. 214 Cf. judgment delivered by the Sentencing Court for Crime, Drug-trafficking and Offenses against the Environment of the department of Baja Verapaz, Salamá, case No. 28-2003-OF-1 of May 28, 2008 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome II, folios 718, 723 and 724). 54