while, in one statement, Eduardo Matson Ospino indicated that he had been struck on his testicles. 659 The Court does not have sufficient evidence to rule on this; however it deems it pertinent that the State investigate these presumed facts in the context of its obligation to investigate (infra para. 558). 427. The Court also considers that some of the acts to which Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci was subjected constituted forms of violence against women. 660 Thus it underscores that Ms. Santodomingo has testified consistently that, in the truck on the way to the Charry Solano Battalion, she “protested so that they would not cut her hair”; they separated her from Mr. Matson Ospino; blindfolded and disoriented “they told [her] that they were going to throw her into the waterfall naked,” and several men put her in a room alone and still blindfolded, “they laid [her] down, they handcuffed her to a bed, with her arms outstretched,” they sat beside her and continued to interrogate her, harassing and threatening her to make her incriminate herself, and at one moment one of the officials exclaimed “and, to cap it all, pregnant.” 661 The Court stresses the special situation of vulnerability in which Ms. Santodomingo Albericci was placed, handcuffed to a bed and surrounded by men, presumably armed, without being able to see what was happening because she was blindfolded. Thus, Ms. Santodomingo stated: “[w]hen one is handcuffed in a room with five individuals, the outlook is not good at all,” she “felt helpless, handcuffed to a bed and with five men next to her.” 662 The Court also considers that the threat to cut her hair, as well as the expression of scorn about a possible pregnancy denote actions against Ms. Santodomingo Albericci because she is a woman. The coerced cutting of the hair, or its threat, signified a change in a person’s appearance without their consent, so that, depending on the circumstances of the case, it may constitute treatment that is contrary to Article 5(2) of the Convention, 663 but also, in the specific case of women, it usually has connotations and implications relating to their femininity, as well as an impact on their self659 Eduardo Matson Ospino described how he was struck on the testicles with the butt of a rifle in one of his statements; however, he did not mention this fact in his other statements. Cf. Testimony of Eduardo Matson Ospino of April 11, 1986, before the 77th Criminal Investigation Court Bogota (evidence file, folio 30785). Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci also testified on one occasion that Eduardo had been struck on the testicles. Cf. Testimony of Yolanda Santodomingo of December 2, 1985, before the Attorney General’s office (evidence file, folio 14553). 660 The Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women defines gender-based violence against women as “violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately. It includes acts that inflict physical, mental or sexual harm or suffering, threats of such acts, coercion and other deprivations of liberty.” General recommendation No. 19, Violence against women, eleventh session, 1992, para. 6. In addition, article 1 of the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women defines this as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life,” General Assembly resolution 48/104 of 20 December 1993. Available at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/48/a48r104.htm 661 Cf. Testimony provided by Yolanda Santodomingo before the Prosecution Service on August 1, 2006 (evidence file, folio 1022); Testimony of Yolanda Santodomingo of December 2, 1985, before the Attorney General’s office (evidence file, folio 14554); Testimony of Yolanda Santodomingo of February 7, 1986, before the 41st Criminal Investigation Court of Bogota (evidence file, folio 14972), and Testimony of Yolanda Santodomingo during the public hearing on the merits in this case. 662 Cf. Testimony of Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci of August 1, 2006, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 1022), and Expert appraisal by Ana Deutsch of Yolanda Santodomingo (evidence file, folio 35988). 663 In this regard, the European Court has indicated that “[t]he forced shaving off of a prisoner's hair, […] consists in a forced change of the person’s appearance by the removal of his hair. The person undergoing that treatment is very likely to experience a feeling of inferiority as his physical appearance is changed against his will. […] The Court thus considers that the forced shaving off of detainees' hair is in principle an act which may have the effect of diminishing their human dignity or may arouse in them feelings of inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them. Whether or not the minimum threshold of severity is reached and, consequently, whether or not the treatment complained of constitutes degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention will depend on the particular facts of the case, including the victim's personal circumstances, the context in which the impugned act was carried out and its aim.” Cf. ECHR, Case of Yankov v. Bulgaria, No. 39084/97. Judgment of 11 December 2003, paras. 112 and 114. 149