172. This Court notes that Article 5(2) of the American Convention establishes that “[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” Similarly, Article 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child stipulates that States shall ensure that “[n]o child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The Court underscores that this article then establishes that “[…] life imprisonment without possibility of release shall [not] be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age,” and thus, this international instrument reveals a clear connection between the two prohibitions. 173. This Court has established that torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are strictly prohibited by international human rights law. 237 The prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is absolute and nonderogable, even under the most difficult circumstances, such as war, threat of war, the fight against terrorism and any other crimes, state of siege or emergency, internal conflict or unrest, suspension of constitutional guarantees, internal political instability or other public disasters or emergencies. 238 The Court has also indicated that criminal sanctions are an expression of the punitive power of the State and “entail impairment, withdrawal or alteration of the rights of the individual, as a result of unlawful conduct.” 239 174. In the area of international human rights law, most relevant treaties only establish, by fairly similar formulas, that “no one shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” 240 However, the dynamic nature of the interpretation and application of this branch of international law has allowed a requirement of proportionality to be inferred from norms that make no explicit mention of this element. The initial concern in this regard, focused on the prohibition of torture as a form of persecution and punishment as well as other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment has extended to other areas, including those of State punishments for the perpetration of offenses. Corporal punishment, the death penalty, and life imprisonment are the main sanctions that are of concern from the point of view of international human rights law. Therefore, this area refers not only to the means of punishment, but also to the proportionality of the punishment, as indicated in this judgment (supra paras. 147, 151, 161, 165 and 166). Therefore, punishments considered radically disproportionate, such as those that can be described as atrocious fall within the sphere of application of the articles that contain the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. 241 In this regard, the Court observes that, in the judgment in the cases of Harkins and Edwards v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the European Court”) established that imposing a sentence that is severely disproportionate may constitute cruel treatment and, therefore, 237 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 95, and Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti. Merits and reparations. Judgment of November 23, 2011. Series C No. 236, para. 70. 238 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 100, and Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti, para. 70. 239 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 106, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 314. 240 For example, Article 5(2) of the American Convention, Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. 241 Cf. ECHR. Cases of Harkins and Edwards v. United Kingdom (No. 9146/07 and No. 32650/07). Judgment of 17 January 2012, para. 132. 59