- 74 - police, they should not leave their homes, the only place where they supposedly belonged according to the latter’s imaginary and stereotyped vision of social roles (infra paras. 210 and ff.); moreover, it also had the distinctive purpose of punishing them for daring to question police authority, as well as in retaliation for the supposed injuries suffered by their police colleagues. In this regard, the SCJN stressed that “a possible cause of the sexual abuse reported could be that the mindset of some police agents was affected by awareness of the attacks that their colleagues had suffered and they wanted to punish those they believed were, or were associated with, the individuals responsible.”295 198. Therefore, the Court concludes that the series of abuses and attacks suffered by each of the eleven women in this case, including but not limited to the rapes, constituted acts of torture by state agents against Yolanda Muñoz Diosdada, Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio, María Patricia Romero Hernández, Mariana Selvas Gómez, Georgina Edith Rosales Gutiérrez, Ana María Velasco Rodríguez, Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo, Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno, María Cristina Sánchez Hernández, Angélica Patricia Torres Linares and Claudia Hernández Martínez. 199. The Court emphasizes that the torture perpetrated in this case was committed during a police operation in which the women were under the complete control of State agents and in a situation of absolute helplessness. Far from acting as guarantors of the rights recognized in the Convention to the persons in their custody, 296 the Mexican State’s security agents personally abused, repeatedly and collectively, of the vulnerable situation of the victims. B.2.c Use of torture and sexual violence as a weapon for repressive social control 200. That said, the Court observes with concern that the severity of the sexual violence in this case, in addition to its classification as torture, also stems from the fact that it was used as an intentional and targeted form of social control. In the context of armed conflicts, the United Nations Security Council,297 international criminal courts/tribunals,298 and domestic courts299 have In this regard, it determined that “the police agents were not only aware of the attacks that their colleagues had suffered, but also they believed that they were dead” and this could have had an impact on their mindset. The interviews with several police agents conducted by the Commission of Inquiry reveal that some of them coincided in indicating that the excesses could be due to the anger they felt owing to the attacks they had suffered. Cf. SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 31048 to 31050). 295 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, paras. 99 and 100, 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. 296 “Noting that […] women and girls are particularly targeted by the use of sexual violence, including as a tactic of war to humiliate, dominate, instill fear in, disperse and/or forcibly relocate civilian members of a community or ethnic group; and that sexual violence perpetrated in this manner may in some instances persist after the cessation of hostilities; […] 1. Stresses that sexual violence, when used or commissioned as a tactic of war in order to deliberately target civilians or as a part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilian populations, can significantly exacerbate situations of armed conflict and may impede the restoration of international peace and security, [… and therefore] effective steps to prevent and respond to such acts of sexual violence can significantly contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, and expresses its readiness, when considering situations on the agenda of the Council, to, where necessary, adopt appropriate steps to address widespread or systematic sexual violence.” UN Security Council. Resolution 1820 of June 19, 2008, S/RES/1820 (2008), preamble and first operative paragraph. 297 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Kovac and Vukovic. Judgment of February 22, 2001, paras. 583 to 585; ICTR, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu. Judgment on appeal of June 1, 2001, para. 731; Special Court for Sierra Leone, Prosecutor against Issa Hassan Sesay, Morris Kallon and Augustine Gbao (Case No. SCSL-04-15-T). Judgment of March 2, 2009 (Trial Chamber 1), paras. 1347 and 1348 298 See, inter alia, Constitutional Court of Colombia. Ruling 092/08 in the context of surmounting the situation of unconstitutionality declared in judgment T-025/04 and judgment T-126/18 of April 12, 2018. 299