B. Considerations of the Court B.1 General considerations on the right to personal integrity and, in particular, to the right of every person not to be subjected to torture 91. The Court recalls that while Article 5(1) of the American Convention establishes, in general terms, the right to personal integrity -physical, psychological and moral-, Article 5(2) specifically prohibits torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Court has also indicated that the violation of the right to physical and mental integrity has different gradations and ranges from torture to other kinds of illtreatment or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the physical and mental effects of which vary in intensity based on endogenous and exogenous factors (such as, the duration of the treatment and the context, and the individual’s age, sex, health and vulnerability), which must be analyzed in each specific case. 160 In other words, the personal characteristics of an alleged victim of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, must be taken into account when determining whether their personal integrity has been violated because such characteristics may alter their perception and, consequently, increase the suffering and the feeling of humiliation when subjected to certain treatment. 161 92. The Court also recalls that it has now been recognized that the absolute prohibition of torture, either physical or psychological, forms part of international ius cogens. 162 Since Article 5(2) of the American Convention does not specify what should be understood by the term “torture,” the Court has had recourse to both Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, 163 as well as other definitions contained in international instruments prohibiting torture, 164 to arrive at the elements constitutive of torture. 165 Based on these instruments, it has been determined that an act constitutes torture when the mistreatment: i) is intentional; ii) causes severe physical Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 127, and Case of Dial et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra, para. 64. 161 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 127, and Case of Dial et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra, para. 64. 162 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 92, and Case of Dial et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra, para. 63. 163 Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture provides, in the relevant part, that: “[f]or the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose […]”. 164 Especially, Article 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which establishes: 1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which serious pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person, with the aim of obtaining from him or her third party information or a confession, to punish him for an act he has committed, or is suspected of having committed, or to intimidate or coerce that person or others, or for any reason based on any type of discrimination, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by a public official or other person in the performance of public duties, at his instigation, or with his consent or acquiescence. Pain or suffering that is the sole consequence of legitimate sanctions, or that is inherent or incidental to them, will not be considered torture. 2. This article shall be without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation that contains or may contain provisions of greater scope. 165 Cf. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, paras. 78 and 79, and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2021. Series C No. 431, para. 101. 160 28