be understood that vaginal penetration refers to penetration by any part of the perpetrator’s body or by objects of any genital opening, including the labia majora and labia minora, as well as the vaginal orifice. This interpretation is in keeping with the concept that any type of penetration, however slight, is sufficient for an act to be considered rape. The Court understands that rape is a form of sexual violence. 185 88. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture has pointed out that rape is a method of physical torture, used in some cases to punish, intimidate, and humiliate. 186 Both the Inter-American Commission and the Court have described various acts of violence and rape committed by State agents as forms of torture. 187 In this regard, the Inter-American Commission and Court have held that sexual violence against women has devastating physical, emotional, and psychological consequences for them. 188 In addition, they have maintained that it is an extremely traumatic experience that can have severe consequences 189 and causes great physical and psychological harm that leaves the victim “physically and emotionally humiliated,” a situation that is difficult to overcome with the passage of time. 190 89. The Inter-American Commission 191 and the Inter-American Court have also stated that sexual violence entails the violation of essential aspects of privacy and the denial of the “right to decide freely with whom to have intimate relations, […] and over basic bodily functions.” 192 Along the same lines, on the relationship between violence against women and discrimination, the IACHR has observed that violence against women is a form of discrimination that severely impairs the enjoyment of rights and freedoms on an equal footing with men. 4. Application of the above considerations to the facts of the case The duty to protect against the death threats, kidnapping, torture and sexual violence committed against Jineth Bedoya et al. Appeal Judgment of June 12, 2002, Case No. IT-96-23-T and IT-96-23/1-T, para. 127. The Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court also highlighted, for the purpose of typifying crimes against humanity and sexual violence as a war crime, that a sexual violation has taken place whenever “[t]he perpetrator invaded the body of a person by conduct resulting in penetration, however slight, of any part of the body of the victim or of the perpetrator with a sexual organ, or of the anal or genital opening of the victim with any object or any other part of the body”. Cfr. Elements of Crimes, September 9, 2002, ICC-ASP/1/3 (part-II-B), article 7 1) g)-1 and article 8 2) e) vi)1. Available at http://legal.un.org/icc/asp/1stsession/report/english/part_ii_b_e.pdf; Special Court for Sierra Leone, Prosecutor v. Issa Hassan Sesay et al. Judgment of March 2, 2009, Case No. SCSL-04-15-T, para. 145 and 146. 185 I/A Court H.R. Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C, No. 275, Para. 359. 186 United Nations, E./CN.4/1986/15, para. 119 and 431. 187 IACHR. Report 5/96. Case 10.970. Peru. Raquel Martín de Mejía. March 1, 1996; IACHR. Violence and discrimination against women in the armed conflict in Colombia. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 67. October 18, 2006. Para. 54; I/A Court H.R. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C, No. 216; I/A Court H.R. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010, Series C, No. 215; I/A Court H.R. Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C, No. 289. 188 IACHR. Report No 53/01. Case 11.565. Ana, Beatriz and Celia González Pérez. Mexico. April 4, 2001. Para. 45; I/A Court H.R. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C, No. 160, para. 313, citing Cfr. United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Fifty-fourth session. Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy, submitted in accordance with Commission resolution 1997/44. Doc. E/CN.4/1998/54, of 26 January 1998, para. 14. 189 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C, No. 160, para. 311, citing United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Fiftieth session. Question of the human rights of all persons subjected to any form of detention or imprisonment, in particular: torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Nigel S. Rodley, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1992/32. Doc. E/CN.4/1995/34 of 12 January 1995, para. 19. 190 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C, No. 160, para. 311, citing European Court of Human Rights., Case of Aydin v. Turkey (GC). Judgment of 25 September 1997, Application No. 57/1996/676/866, para. 83. 191 IACHR. Report 5/96. Case 10.970. Peru. Raquel Martín de Mejía. March 1, 1996. 192 I/A Court H.R. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C, No. 216, para. 119; I/A Court H.R. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010, Series C, No. 215, para. 129, citing European Court of Human Rights, Case of M.C. v. Bulgaria. Judgment of 4 December 2003, App. No. 39272/98, para. 150, and International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Case of Mucic et. al. “Celebici Camp”. Judgment of November 16, 1998. Case No. IT-96-21-T, para. 492. 23