1.1. General considerations on the substantive rights violated in cases of sexual violence or rape 78. The Commission and the Inter-American Court have taken up cases of sexual violence against women. Both bodies have analyzed the manner in which sexual violence, including rape, violates the rights to personal integrity, private life, autonomy and non-discrimination.137 79. The Court has maintained that sexual violence involves acts of a sexual nature, committed against a person without their consent, and that in addition to the physical invasion of the human body, they may include acts which do not involve penetration or even any physical contact. 138 Furthermore, rape is understood as an act of vaginal or anal penetration, without the victim’s consent, through the use of other parts of the aggressor’s body or objects, as well as oral penetration with the virile member. 139 The Court added in J. vs. Peru that “in order for an act to be considered rape, it is sufficient that penetration, however slight, occurs, as described above.”140 80. The IACHR has stated that rape imposes severe and long-lasting physical and mental suffering, due to its nonconsensual and invasive nature, affecting the victim, her family, and the community.141 The Commission has also maintained that sexual violence against women has physical, emotional, and psychological consequences that are devastating for the victims. 142 81. The Court has also maintained that rape constitutes a paradigmatic form of violence against women, and its consequences go far beyond the victim herself. 143 Furthermore, it is an extremely traumatic experience that may have serious consequences and it causes great physical and psychological damage that leaves the victim “physically and emotionally humiliated,” situation difficult to overcome with time.144 82. With respect to Article 11.2 of the American Convention, the Court has stated that even though this provision is entitled “Right to Privacy,” it includes the protection of an individual’s private life.145 Moreover, the concept of privacy is a wide-ranging term, which cannot be exhaustively defined but does, however, include sexual life, and the right to take decisions in such sphere. 146 137 IACHR, Report 76/11, Case 11.769, Merits, J., Peru, July 20, 2011. Also see: Inter-American Court. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215. 138 Inter-American Court. Case of Rosendo Cantú and other v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, par. 109. 139 Inter-American Court. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, par. 310. 140 Inter-American Court. Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, par. 359. 141 IACHR, Report 76/11, Case 11.769, Merits, J., Peru, July 20, 2011, par. 188. 142 IACHR, Report 76/11, Case 11.769, Merits, J., Peru, July 20, 2011, par. 189. Inter-American Court. Case of Rosendo Cantú and other v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, par. 109. 143 144 Inter-American Court. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, par. 311. 145 Inter-American Court. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, par. 193; Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, par. 55. 146 Inter-American Court. Case of Rosendo Cantú and other v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, par. 119.