violation of that person’s right to humane treatment.” 115 By the same token, prolonged isolation and deprivation of communication “are in themselves cruel and inhuman treatment, harmful to the psychological and moral integrity of the person and a violation of the right of any detainee to respect for his inherent dignity as a human being.”116 51. With respect to torture, it is strictly prohibited by international human rights law, and that prohibition is absolute and non-derogable, even in the most difficult circumstances.117 The international juridical regime of absolute prohibition of all forms of torture, both physical and psychological, is now part of international jus cogens.118 The Court has stated that, in the light of Article 5 (2) of the Convention, 119 an act constitutes torture when the ill-treatment: (i) is intentional; (ii) causes severe physical or mental suffering, and (iii) is committed with an objective or purpose. 120 Furthermore, threats and real danger of submitting a person to physical injuries produces, in certain circumstances, a moral anguish of such degree that it may be considered “psychological torture."121 52. The IACHR has consistently held that rape committed by members of the security forces of a state constitutes, in any situation, a gross violation of the human rights protected by Articles 5 and 11 of the American Convention.122 All acts of rape inflict severe and long-lasting mental and physical suffering, due to the nonconsensual and invasive nature of this unlawful act, which affects the victim, her family and community. This is aggravated when the perpetrator is a state agent, because of the physical and psychological power the aggressor can exercise over the victim by reason of his position of authority.123 53. Both the Commission and the Court have held that sexual violence against women has devastating physical, emotional, and psychological consequences for them.124 They have also recognized that the rape of a female detainee by a State agent is an especially gross and reprehensible act, taking into account the victim’s vulnerability and the abuse of power displayed by the agent. 125 Similarly, they have held that rape is an extremely traumatic experience that has severe consequences126 and causes great physical and psychological damage, leaving the victim “physically and emotionally humiliated,” a situation that it is difficult to overcome with the passage of time.127 In addition, the Court has stated that: rape inherently produces severe suffering for the victim, even when there is no evidence of physical injury or affliction. Indeed, the consequences of rape will not be bodily injuries or ailments in all cases. Women victims of rape also experience severe psychological, and even social, harm and aftereffects. 128 I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of September 7, 2004, Series C. No. 114, (Tibi Judgment), par. 150. See also Judgment in Loayza Tamayo Case, par. 58; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 25, 2006, Series C. No. 160 (Miguel Castro Castro Prison Judgment), par. 315; Case of Neira Alegría et al v. Peru, Merits, Judgment of January 19, 1995, Series C. No. 20, par. 60. 116 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C. No. 4 (Velásquez Rodríguez Judgment), par. 156. 117 I/A Court H.R., Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 27, 2003, Series C. No. 103 (Maritza Urrutia Judgment), par. 89; and Cantoral Benavides Case v. Peru, Reparations, Judgment of December 3, 2001, Series C No. 88 (Cantoral Benavides Reparations), par. 95. 118 I/A Court H.R., Maritza Urrutia Judgment, par. 92; Cantoral Benavides Reparations, par. 102 and 103. 119 Bearing in mind that the prohibition of torture is expressly included in Article 5 (2) of the Convention, the Commission considers it unnecessary in this case to analyze the concept of torture in light of the provisions of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, which was ratified by Bolivia after the events. 120 I/A Court H.R., Espinoza Gonzáles Judgment, par. 143. 121 I/A Court H.R., Barrios Family Judgment, par. 51. 122 IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case 12.579, of Valentina Rosendo Cantú et al., Mexico, August 2, 2009 (Valentina Rosendo Cantú et al. Application), par. 60; Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case 12.580, Inés Fernández Ortega, Mexico, May 7, 2009 (Inés Fernández Ortega Application), par. 88; Report No. 53/01, Case 11,565, Merits, Ana, Beatriz and Cecilia González Pérez, Mexico, April 4, 2001, par. 45; and IACHR, Report No. 5/96, Case 10.970, Merits, Raquel Martin Mejía, Peru, March 1, 1996, Section 3. Analysis. 123 IACHR. Rosendo Cantú et al. Application, par. 90, Inés Fernández Ortega Application, par. 117. 124 IACHR, Report No. 53/01, Case 11.565, Ana, Beatriz and Celia González Pérez, Mexico, April 4, 2001, par. 45; I/A Court H.R., Miguel Castro Castro Prison Judgment, par. 313. 125 I/A Court H.R., Miguel Castro Castro Prison Judgment, par. 311. 126 I/A Court H.R., Miguel Castro Castro Prison Judgment, par. 311. 127 I/A Court H.R., Miguel Castro Castro Prison Judgment, par. 311, citing ECHR, Case of Aydin v. Turkey (GC), Judgment of 25 September 1997, App. No. 57/1996/676/866, § 83. 128 I/A Court H.R., Espinoza Gonzáles Judgment, par. 193. 115 15