196. The Commission indicated that, in response to the complaints and supposed indications that Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza had been tortured by means of the falanga, “the State did not provide a satisfactory explanation” as to what happened to them and, “consequently, did not disprove the presumption of responsibility” for the injuries suffered by individuals in its custody. The Commission affirmed that “by the application of methods prejudicial to human dignity, intended to cause physical suffering, Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza were subjected to torture by State agents and, therefore, [the State …]” violated Article 5 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez.” 197. The representative argued that Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza “were subjected to acts of torture,” such as the “falanga.” According to the representative, “both of them were severely beaten with sticks on the head, back, and soles of the feet, and some days later, were forced to remain in the sun in positions requiring the use of strength while [… being] beaten on the back.” Thus, she alleged that the State had violated Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of those indicated above. 198. The State indicated that “the injuries to [Lucas] Mendoza and [Claudio] Núñez were the result of a brawl between inmates” and that, during the processing of the provisional measures before the Commission, the petitioners did not mention “the eventual filing of judicial remedies available at the domestic level […,] in particular, “the application for corrective habeas corpus.” C.2. Considerations of the Court 199. First, the Court reiterates its case law to the effect that, today, the absolute prohibition of torture, both physical and mental, is part of international jus cogens (supra para. 173). 267 Both universal 268 and regional treaties 269 establish this prohibition and the non-derogable right not to be subjected to any form of torture. Furthermore, numerous international instruments establish that right and reiterate the same prohibition, 270 even under international humanitarian law. 271 267 Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 117, and Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti, para. 70. 268 Cf. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 7; Convention against Torture and All Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Art. 2; Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art. 37, and International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, Art. 10. 269 Cf. Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, Arts. 1 and 5; African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights, Art. 5; African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, art. 16; Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (Convention of Belém do Pará), Art. 4, and European Convention of Human Rights, Art. 3. 270 Cf. 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, art. 5; United Nations 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, art. 6; United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (“The Beijing Rules”), Rule 17.3; Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict, art. 4, and Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on human rights and the fight against terrorism, Guideline IV. 271 Cf. Art. 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions; Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Convention III), Arts. 49, 52, 87, 89 and 97; Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Convention IV), Arts. 40, 51, 95, 96, 100 and 119; Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Art. 75.2.a.ii), and Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to 66