216. The general principle applied by the European Court in cases like A v. United Kingdom is that the general obligations to respect and guarantee, together with the prohibition established in Article 3 of the European Convention, impose on the State the obligation to ensure that “individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including such ill-treatment administered by private individuals.”297 In this case, the European Court analyzed the State’s international responsibility for the abuse suffered by A. at the hands of his stepfather when he was a boy. The Court took into account that “Children and other vulnerable individuals, in particular, are entitled to State protection, in the form of effective deterrence, against such serious breaches of personal integrity.”298 Based on this, the Court concluded that the State did not provide adequate protection for the victim from the acts prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. 217. Later, in the case of Opuz v. Turkey, the European Court took up this standard once again and specified that the victim in the case, a woman who was victimized by serious acts of violence committed by her former partner, including the murder of her mother, formed part of “other vulnerable groups” that deserve special protection from the State.299 The Court also addressed the criteria that must be met for certain facts to fall under the conduct established in Article 3 of the European Convention, such as the degree of gravity of the abuse inflicted. According to the Court, this should be analyzed according to the circumstances of each case and taking into account aspects such as their nature and context, duration, physical and mental harm caused, and “in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim.”300 218. In this case, the European Court took into account that situations of violence against women, such as domestic violence, are not limited to a single specific case and are not limited to interpersonal relationships or “private matters.” Rather they are a general issue that is of concern to all States and whose gravity must be taken into account when analyzing incidents such as the one in this case.301Thus, the Court analyzed both the specific situation of the victim and the general context of the situation of violence against women in Turkey and found that the abuse she suffered must be examined under the States’ obligations derived from Article 3 of the Convention. In the end, the European Court found that the State was internationally responsible for these acts insofar as being fully aware of the situation, it did not take effective measures with a true “preventive or deterrent effect [on the perpetrator]” to stop the attacks from reoccurring. The Court also established that the States inaction reflected certain degree of tolerance.”302 219. The Commission agrees with these developments under other protection systems, which, upon analyzing elements that would constitute conduct prohibited under Article 5(2) of the American Convention, have found that acts of physical, psychological, and sexual violence committed by non-State actors can be classified as such prohibited conduct, with emphasis on the characteristics of this type of violence and the serious effects it has on its victims. As far as the elements of State participation, the cited standards are consistent in considering failure in the duty to prevent and protect can be understood as a form of State tolerance and acquiescence with the corresponding legal implications of the ban on torture in a case like this one. 220. With regard to the arguments presented so far, the Commission considers certain acts of violence against women, including sexual violence and rape, can be categorized as torture or other conduct prohibited under Article 5(2) of the Convention, as it has the elements of that grave human rights violation. This includes acts committed by non-State actors in the private realm when it has been established that the 297 ECHR. Case of A. v. The United Kingdom. (100/1997/884/1096). Judgment Strasbourg of 23 September 1998, para. 22. 298 ECHR. Case of A. v. The United Kingdom. (100/1997/884/1096). Judgment Strasbourg of 23 September 1998, para. 22. 299 ECHR. Case of Opuz v. Turkey. Application No. 33401/02. Judgment Strasbourg of 9 June 2009, para. 160. 300 ECHR. Case of Opuz v. Turkey. Application No. 33401/02. Judgment Strasbourg of 9 June 2009, para. 158. 301 ECHR. Case of Opuz v. Turkey. Application No. 33401/02. Judgment Strasbourg of 9 June 2009, paras. 132, 144. 302 ECHR. Case of Opuz v. Turkey. Application No. 33401/02. Judgment Strasbourg of 9 June 2009, para. 170.