61 international instruments recognize this right and reaffirm that prohibition, including international 196 humanitarian law. . 295. The Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, which entered into force for Argentina on February 28, 1987, is part of the inter-American corpus juris which the Commission is to use as a tool with which to interpret the meaning and scope of the general provision contained in Article 197 5(2) of the American Convention. Specifically, Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture defines torture as: […] any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish. 296. The Commission is again compelled to underscore the standards described earlier in this report on the State’s special condition as guarantor of the rights of all persons deprived of liberty. 3. Analysis of these standards in light of the treatment of Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza 297. As was established in the section on proven facts, at the urging of a number of officials, including the National Sentence Enforcement Judge and the Office of the Attorney for the National Prison System, between December 10 and 27, 2007, Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez underwent numerous medical evaluations. On the whole, these examinations were consistent in reporting that both young men had slight abrasions and bruising on various parts of the body. However, it was also established that the last four medical examinations done on Lucas Matías Mendoza found hematomas on the soles of both feet. 298. Here the Commission must again point out that the State, being responsible for detention centers, is the guarantor of the rights of detainees, which involves, inter alia, the obligation to provide a 198 satisfactory explanation when someone in its custody sustains some injury. In other words, absent that explanation, and inasmuch as the persons in question are incarcerated in State-run detention centers or 196 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bueno Alves. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 164, para. 77. Citing: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 7; the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 2; the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 37, and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, Article 10; the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, Article 2; the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 5; the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, Article 16; Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women (Convention of Belém do Pará), Article 4, and the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 3; Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, Principle 6; Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, Article 5; UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty, Rule 87(a); Declaration on the human rights of individuals who are not nationals of the country in which they live, Article 6; United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules), Rule 17(3); Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict, Article 4, and European Committee of Ministers, Guidelines on Human Rights and the Fight against Terrorism, Guideline IV; Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions; Third Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war (Convention III), Articles 49, 52, 87, 89, and 97; Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war (Convention IV), Articles 40, 51, 95, 96, 100 and 119; Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, on protection of victims in international armed conflict (Protocol I), Article 75(2)(ii), and Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Article 4(2)(a). 197 Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 145. 198 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 126.