41 193. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture has said that rape is one of the 182 methods of physical torture, used on occasions to punish, intimidate, and humiliate. Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that: Rape of a detainee by an official of the State must be considered to be an especially grave and abhorrent form of ill-treatment given the ease with which the offender can exploit the vulnerability and weakened resistance of his victim. Furthermore, rape leaves deep psychological scars on the victim which do not respond to the passage of time as quickly as other forms of physical and 183 mental violence. 194. In another case involving rape at the hands of members of the security forces during Peru’s internal armed conflict, the IACHR described such actions as a form of psychological torture because its objective, in many cases, is not just to humiliate the victim but also her family or community: Rape causes physical and mental suffering in the victim. In addition to the violence suffered at the time it is committed, the victims are commonly hurt or, in some cases, are even made pregnant. The fact of being made the subject of abuse of this nature also causes a psychological trauma that results, on the one hand, from having been humiliated and victimized, and on the other, from suffering the condemnation of the members of their community if they report what has been done to 184 them. 195. The Inter-American Court has defined rape not only as vaginal intercourse, but also “vaginal or anal penetration, without the victim’s consent, through the use of other parts of the aggressor’s 185 body or objects, as well as oral penetration with the virile member.” The Inter-American Court also ruled recently that sexual violence is a paradigmatic form of violence against women with consequences 186 that go beyond the person of the victim. 196. In connection with the impact that rape cases have on private life, the Inter-American Court has ruled that the rights enshrined in Article 11 of the Convention cover a range of areas, including 187 “sexual life and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings.” The Court has also stated that rape implies violations of essential aspects of private life and the nullification of the “right to freely make decisions regarding with whom to have sexual relations […] and about basic bodily 188 functions.” 197. According to the facts established in the case at hand, between April and May 1993 Gladys Carol Espinoza suffered stripping, humiliation, groping, anal penetration with a wooden object, 182 United Nations, E./CN.4/1986/15, paras. 119 and 431. 183 European Court of Human Rights, Aydin v. Turkey, (57/1996/676/866), Judgment of September 25, 1997, para. 83. 184 IACHR, Report No. 5/96, Case 10.970, Merits, Raquel Martín Mejía, Peru, March 1, 1996. 185 I/A Court H. R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 25, 2006, Series C No. 160, para. 310. 186 I/A Court H. R., Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 31, 2010, Series C No. 216, para. 109; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 30, 2010, Series C No. 215, para. 119. 187 I/A Court H. R., Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 31, 2010, Series C No. 216, para. 119; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 30, 2010, Series C No. 215, para. 129, citing the following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: Case of Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of October 22, 1981, App. No. 7525/76, para. 41; Case of X and Y v. the Netherlands, Judgment of March 26, 1985, App. No. 8978/80, para. 22; Case of Niemietz v. Germany, Judgment of December 16, 1992, App. No. 13710/88, para. 29; and Case of Peck v. United Kingdom, Judgment of January 28, 2003, App. No. 44647/98, para. 57. 188 I/A Court H. R., Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 31, 2010, Series C No. 216, para. 119; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 30, 2010, Series C No. 215, para. 129, citing: ECHR, Case of M.C. v. Bulgaria, Judgment of December 4, 2003, App. No. 39272/98, para. 150; and ICTY, Case of Mucić et. al. “Čelebići Camp,” Judgment of November 16, 1998, Case No. IT-96-21-T, para. 492.