subjected to numerous interrogations during which he was pressured to “confess” supposed links to the M-19; then transferred to a military garrison where he was kept for several hours and again interrogated (supra para. 395). Regarding José Vicente Rubiano Galvis, the Court concluded that he was detained by military authorities, taken to two different military facilities (in Zipaquirá and in Bogota) where he was beaten and electric shocks were applied to his abdomen and testicles, while he was interrogated seeking to make him “confess” to supposed links with the M-19, and then he was confined in the stables until the following day (supra para. 395). 424. Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, the Court considers that the illtreatment inflicted on Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci, Eduardo Matson Ospino and José Vicente Rubiano Galvis constituted intentional ill-treatment that entailed severe suffering, the purpose of which, as revealed by their numerous statements, was that “they confess” supposed links to or collaboration with the M-19. Consequently, the Court concludes that the ill-treatment to which Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci, Eduardo Matson Ospino and José Vicente Rubiano Galvis were subjected constituted torture, in the terms of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 425. In addition, the Court underlines that it has considered it proved that José Vicente Rubiano Galvis was subjected to electric shocks on his genitals. The Court has considered that sexual violence is constituted by acts of a sexual nature committed on a person without their consent; in addition to the physical invasion of the human body, this may include acts that do not involve penetration or even any physical contact. 655 The Court considers that this act entailed an invasion of the privacy of Mr. Rubiano Galvis that, since it involved his genital area, meant that it was of a sexual nature, so that it constituted an act of sexual violence. The Court stresses that sexual violence by a State agent against a person deprived of liberty in the custody of the State is a grave and reprehensible act, taking into account the victim’s vulnerability and the abuse of power by the agent. 656 This act is physically and emotionally denigrating and humiliating and can have severe psychological consequences for the victim. In this case, neither the Commission nor the representatives argued a violation of Article 11 of the Convention based on these acts. However, the Court recalls that it has competence – under the American Convention and based on the iura novit curia principle – to examine the possible violation of norms of the Convention that have not been alleged in the briefs it has received, in the understanding that the parties have had the opportunity to express their respective positions in relation to the facts that substantiate this. 657 The Court has stipulated that Article 11 of the American Convention includes the protection of privacy, and among other protected spheres, this includes a person’s sexual life. 658 Therefore, the Court considers that the sexual violence suffered by José Vicente Rubiano Galvis also entailed a violation of Article 11(1) and 11(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to his detriment. 426. Furthermore, the Court notes that the psychological appraisal conducted on Ms. Santodomingo Albericci reveals that she could have been subjected to sexual violence, 655 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 306, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 358. 656 Cf. Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 361. 657 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 163, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, para. 305. 658 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 129, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 276. 148