creating obligations erga omnes.”87 For its part, the Inter-American Court has repeatedly held that international human rights law strictly prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. The absolute prohibition of torture, both physical and psychological, is currently part of the domain of the international jus cogens.88 69. According to the jurisprudence of the inter-American system, the following elements must be present for an act to be considered torture: it must (i) be an intentional act committed by an agent of the State or with his or her authorization or acquiescence; (ii) cause severe physical or mental suffering; and (iii) be committed with a given purpose or aim.89 70. The Commission recalls that when torture is alleged, in many cases, such as this one, usually no mechanism is available to the person to prove the acts of violence inflicted upon them. 90 In this regard, the Court has held: [E]vidence obtained during the medical examination plays a crucial role during the investigations conducted against detainees and in cases when the latter allege ill-treatment. In this regard, it is extremely difficult for the victim to substantiate allegations of ill-treatment while in police custody, if he was isolated from the exterior world, without access to doctors, lawyers, family or friends who could provide support and gather the necessary evidence. Therefore, the judicial authorities have the duty to ensure the rights of the detainee, and this entails obtaining and ensuring all the evidence that may prove the acts of torture, including medical examinations. In addition, it is important to emphasize that, in cases in which there are allegations of supposed torture or ill-treatment, the time that has passed before the corresponding medical appraisals are made is determinant in order to conclude without doubt the existence of the harm, especially when there are no witnesses other than the perpetrators and the victims themselves and, consequently, the evidence may be very limited. This reveals that, for an investigation into acts of torture to be effective, it must be conducted promptly.”91 71. In light of the above, when victims who have been deprived of their liberty allege that they have been tortured, “the presumption exists that the State is responsible for any injuries revealed by a person who has been in the custody of State agents” and “the State has the obligation to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of what happened and disprove the arguments concerning its responsibility, with satisfactory probative elements.”92 In the event of a complaint about the commission of a crime of this nature, under Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, “the State has the obligation to commence immediately an effective investigation that may allow the identification, the trial and the punishment of those liable, whenever there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed.” 93 The State's obligation to investigate possible acts of torture is reinforced by the provisions contained in Articles 1, 6 and, 8 of the InterAmerican Convention against Torture that oblige the States “to take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their jurisdiction.”94 72. In the present case, the Commission recapitulates that according to the consistent statement and complaints presented by the alleged victim, after he arrived at the 11th Precinct he was subjected to various beatings and mistreatment that included repeated blows to the soles of his feet over the course of several hours. According to the dissenting opinion of one of the judges who heard the case, there is a victimology report suggesting objective elements of torture based on the consequences thereof. In addition, the Commission notes that, according to the available evidence, there are testimonies from other persons who also said that they were IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, October 22, 2002; and Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum Seekers within the Canadian Refugee Determination System, February 28, 2000, par. 118. 88 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of May 11, 2007, Series C. No. 164, par. 76. 89 IACHR, Report No. 5/96. Case 10.970, Merits, Raquel Martin Mejia, Peru, March 1, 1996, Section 3. See also I/A Court H.R., Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of May 11, 2007, Series C. No. 164, par. 79. 90 IACHR, Report No. 82/13, Case 12.679, Merits, José Agapito Ruano Torres and Family, El Salvador, November 4, 2013, par. 162. I/A Court H.R., Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C. No. 220, par. 128. 91 Case of Valenzuela Avila v. Guatemala, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of October 11, 2019, Series C. No. 386, par. 184. 92 I/A Court H.R., Espinoza Gonzáles Judgment, par. 177. 93 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gutiérrez-Soler v. Colombia, Judgment of September 12, 2005, Series C. No. 132, par. 54; Ticona Estrada Judgment, par. 94; Mendoza Judgment, par. 234. 94 I/A Court H.R., Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Persons Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 14, 2014, Series C. No. 287, par. 476. 87 18