- 73 - intentionality, the severity of the suffering and the purpose of the act must be analyzed, taking into consideration the specific circumstances of each case. 290 194. To establish whether the abuse suffered by the eleven women in this case constituted acts of torture, the Court must examine whether the acts were: (i) intentional (ii) caused severe physical or mental suffering, and (iii) were committed with an objective or purpose. 195. In this case, it is plain that the police acted deliberately against the eleven women. Given the sexual nature of the violence used, the repetition and similarity of the acts committed against the different women, as well as the insults and the threats made against them, the Court finds it evident that these acts were intentional. 196. Regarding the severity of the suffering, this Court has recognized that sexual violence committed by state agents while the victims are in their custody is a serious and reprehensible act, during which the agent abuses his power and takes advantage of the vulnerability of the victim, and this may have severe psychological consequences for victims. 291 The Court also stresses that, in this case, during their detention and transfer to the prison, the victims were repeatedly threatened with murder or rape, and with even worse abuse than the acts that were being inflicted on them. Furthermore, regarding the rapes, the Court has recognized that rape constitutes an extremely traumatic experience that has severe consequences and causes great physical and psychological harm which leaves the victim “physically and emotionally humiliated,” a situation that it is difficult to overcome with the passage of time, contrary to what occurs with other traumatic experiences.292 This reveals that the severe suffering of the victim is inherent in rape, even when there is no evidence of physical injury or disease.293 Women victims of rape also experience severe psychological, and even social, harm and aftereffects.294 As revealed by their statements, the violence to which they were subjected by the state agents in the context of their detentions on May 3 and 4, 2006, caused them severe suffering, the aftereffects of which persist up until the present as has been corroborated by the psychological tests, and by the application of the Istanbul Protocol (supra paras. 106 and ff.). 197. Lastly, with regard to the purpose, the Court notes that the victims’ statements, and the investigations conducted by the CNDH and the SCJN, reveal that the purpose of the violence used against the eleven women was to humiliate them and those the police assumed were their companions; to frighten them, to intimidate them and to prevent them from taking part in political life again or expressing their discontent in the public sphere because, according to the Cf. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, paras. 110 and 112, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 184. 290 Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 311, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C No. 333, para. 255. 291 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 311, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 187. Similarly, ECHR, Case of Aydin v. Turkey, No 23178/94. Judgment of September 25, 1997, para. 83. 292 Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 193, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 187. 293 Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 193, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 184. 294