122. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the state of Argentina violated, and continues violating, the rights to recognition as a person before the law, to life, to personal integrity and humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection as set forth in Articles XVII, XXV, and I of the American Declaration and Articles 3, 4.1, 5.1 and 5.2, and 7.1 of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations set forth in its Article 1.1, to the detriment of Victoria Lucía Grisonas and Mario Roger Julien. The Commission also concludes that the state violated Article I a) of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons (IACFDP), because at the time of the ratification of said instrument by the state of Argentina and to date, the forced disappearance continues to be perpetrated. Furthermore, the Commission concludes that the state violated Articles XVII, XXV, and I of the American Declaration, in connection with its Article VII, to the detriment of Anatole and Victoria Larrabeiti Yáñez. C. Right to personal integrity and the prohibition of torture (Article 5.1 of the American Convention, in connection with its Article 1.1, and Article I of the American Declaration129) 1. General considerations about the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment 123. The IACHR has stressed that the American Convention forbids the use of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment against persons regardless of the circumstance. The Commission has indicated that “an essential aspect of the right to personal security is the absolute prohibition of torture, a peremptory norm of international law creating obligations erga omnes.”130 The IACHR has also qualified the prohibition of torture as a norm of jus cogens. 131 As for the Court, it has pointed out repeatedly that “International Human Rights Law strictly prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. The absolute prohibition of torture, both physical and psychological, is currently part of the domain of the international jus cogens.”132 124. According to the case law of the inter-American system, so that a conduct can be characterized as torture, there must be the following concurrent elements: i) it must be an intentional act perpetrated by a state agent or with his or her authorization or acquiescence; ii) it must cause severe physical or mental suffering; and iii) it must be committed for a given purpose or aim.133 Regarding the second element, the Inter-American Court has established that “upon determining the degree of suffering endured by the victim, the Court must take into account the specific circumstances of each case, in view of objective and subjective factors. The former refer to the characteristics of mistreatment, such as the duration, the method or manner used to inflict harm, and the physical and psychological effects such harm may cause. The latter refer to the characteristics of the individual undergoing mistreatment, including age, gender, health condition, and any other personal circumstance.”134 2. Analysis of the case 125. Below, the Commission shall examine whether or not, in the instant case, there are the three constitutive elements of torture with respect to Victoria Grisonas and her children. First of all, it will examine Article XXVI of the American Declaration, in its relevant part, establishes that: Every person accused of an offense has the right […] not to receive cruel, infamous or unusual punishment. 130 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/SER.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002. Quoting. IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum Seekers Within the Canadian Refugee Determination System, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, Doc. 40 rev., February 28, 2000, para. 118. 131 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/SER.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002. Quoting. IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum Seekers Within the Canadian Refugee Determination System, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, Doc. 40 rev., February 28, 2000, para. 154. 132 I/A Court H.R. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 76; I/A Court H.R. Case of del Penal Miguel Castro Castro Vs. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 271; and I/A Court H.R. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 117. 133 IACHR, Report No. 5/96, Case 10.970, Merits. Raquel Martin Mejía, Peru, March 1, 1996, Section 3; and I/A Court H.R. Case of Bueno Alves Vs. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 79. 134 I/A Court H.R. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 83. 129