is demonstrated that the deprivation of liberty was a step prior to the execution or disappearance of the victims, it is not necessary to determine whether or not the alleged victims were informed of the reasons for their detention; whether or not said detention was effected regardless of the motives and conditions established in the legislation in force at the time of the events and, least of all, whether the acts of the detention were unreasonable, unpredictable or disproportionate. 54 In relation to the duty to guarantee the right to personal liberty, the Court has pointed out that the State must prevent the liberty of the individual being violated by the actions of public officials and private third parties, and must also investigate and punish acts that violate this right. 55 60. In Relation to the right to personal integrity, enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention, the Court has stated that: “[the] infringement of the right to physical and mental integrity of the human person is a type of violation which has a varying connotation and which encompasses torture and other types of mistreatment or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment whose physical and psychological consequences may have different degrees of intensity according to the extrinsic and intrinsic factors which should be proved in each specific situation.” 56 61. The Court has reiterated that “torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment are strictly prohibited by international human rights law. The absolute prohibition of torture, both physical and psychological, is currently part of the domain of international jus cogens. Said prohibition remains valid even under the most difficult circumstances, such as war, threat of war, the fight against terrorism and other crimes, state of siege, or a state of emergency, civil unrest or domestic conflict, suspension of constitutional guarantees, domestic political instability or other public emergencies or catastrophes.” 57 62. Likewise the Court has indicated that various universal and regional instruments set forth said prohibition and enshrine the right of all human beings not to be tortured. Similarly, various international instruments enshrine this right and reaffirm that prohibition, including international humanitarian law. 58 63. Finally, in relation to the right to honor and dignity, the Inter-American Court has affirmed in its jurisprudence that the stigmatization of victims of human rights violations implicates this right. 59 The Commission has indicated that cases in which state authorities make statements or issue 54 I/A Court H.R., Case La Cantuta. Judgment November 29, 2006. C Series No. 162. para. 109. 55 I/A Court H.R., Case González et al. “Cotton Field”. Judgment November 16, 2009. para. 247. I/A Court H.R., Case Ximenes López vs. Brasil, C Series. No. 149, Judgment July 4, 2006, para. 127; Case of Loayza-Tamayo. Judgment of September 17, 1997. C Series No. 33, para. 57. 56 57 I/A Court H.R., Case Bueno Alves. Judgment May 11, 2007. C Series. No. 164. para 76; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison. Judgment of November 25, 2006. C Series No. 160 para. 271; Case of Baldeón-García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. C Series No. 147, para. 117. 58 I/A Court H.R., Case Bueno Alves. Judgment May 11, 2007. C Series. No. 164. para 77. Quoting: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 7; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 2; Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 37, and International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migratory workers and the members of their families relatives, Article 10. Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, Article 2; African Charter on the Rights of Men and of People, Article 5; African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, Article 16; InterAmerican Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women (Convención de Belém do Pará), Article 4, and European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Freedoms, Article 3. Set of principles for the protection of all individuals subject to any form of detention or imprisonment, Principle 6; Code of conduct for law enforcement officers, Article 5; UN Rules on Juveniles Deprived of the Liberty, Rule 87(a); Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not Nationals of the Country in which they Live, Article 6; Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Rules of Beijing), Rule 17(3); Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict, Article 4, and Guidelines on the European Council of Ministers on human rights and the fight against terrorism, Guideline IV; and Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions; Geneva Convention governing war prisoners (Convention III), Articles 49, 52, 87, 89, and 97; Geneve 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 Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, on protection of victims of non-international armed conflict (Protocol II), Article 4(2)(a). 59 Therefore as it has stated in its jurisprudence “regarding to Article 11 of the Convention, it has been proven that the alleged victims were treated as “terrorists”, subjecting them and their family to hatred, public contempt, persecution, and discrimination, for [continues …]