39 Directorate (DINOES) conducted an inspection with excessive use of force at the prison block at Yanamayo where Gladys Carol Espinoza was being held. In spite of the bodily injuries described in the report of the Office of the People’s Defender of August 25, 1999, the prison authorities did not order timely medical attention in order to protect the victim’s integrity. 185. In the case of Montero Aranguren et al., the Inter-American Court developed the basic principle that “the use of force by governmental security forces must be grounded on the existence of exceptional circumstances and should be planned and proportionally limited by the government authorities,” whereby coercive means may only be used “once all other methods of control have been 170 exhausted and failed.” Similarly, Article 3 of the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials states that “law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for 171 the performance of their duty.” 186. The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners state that in using force, 172 prison officers must abide by the principles of legality, need, proportion, and oversight. Similarly, the Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty provide, in more broad terms, that: the personnel of places of deprivation of liberty shall not use force and other coercive means, save exceptionally and proportionally, in serious, urgent and necessary cases as a last resort after having previously exhausted all other options, and for the time and to the extent strictly necessary in order to ensure security, internal order, the protection of the fundamental rights of persons deprived of liberty, the personnel, or the visitors. 187. In terms of the legal assessment of the incident of August 5, 1999, the information available to the IACHR indicates that prison authorities and members of the DINOES pitilessly attacked inmates in Yanamayo’s Block 1D, deliberately beating them with the purpose of punishing them. From the injuries reported by the Office of the People’s Defender, it can be seen that the attack suffered by Gladys Carol Espinoza caused her intense physical suffering. The IACHR therefore concludes that the actions that took place on August 5, 1999, constitute torture in the terms of Article 5.2 of the American Convention and Article 2 of the IACPPT. 188. Finally, the IACHR takes it as established that during her incarceration at Yanamayo Prison, Gladys Carol Espinoza was not provided with a specialized neurological evaluation, in spite of 173 having requested it and in spite of one being recommended by a general physician at the prison. That failing is particularly grave in light of the aftereffects suffered by the victim after being tortured by agents of the DIVISE and the DINCOTE in early 1993. 189. Consequently, with respect to Gladys Carol Espinoza, the Peruvian State failed to meet its obligation of respecting and ensuring the rights enshrined in Articles 5.1, 5.2, and 5.6 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, and it also failed to meet the obligations contained in Articles 1 and 6 of the IACPPT. (b) Specific considerations regarding the rape of Gladys Carol Espinoza by agents of the Peruvian National Police 170 I/A Court H. R., Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), Judgment of July 5, 2006, Series C No. 150, para. 67. 171 UN, Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the General Assembly by means of resolution 34/169, December 17, 1979. 172 UN, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by the First Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council in resolutions 663C (XXIV) of July 31, 1957, and 2076 (LXII) of May 13, 1977, No. 54.1. 173 Annex 22: Report No. 433-99-INPE-DRAP-EPMSY-MIN, December 17, 1999.