even an anal penetration with a greased baton, which constitutes in this case a form of rape.156 In this regard, the Court has affirmed that the severe suffering of the victim157 is inherent in rape and that rape can constitute torture even when it consists of a single act or occurs outside state facilities.158 195. This Court considers that the serious and severe suffering undergone by Mr. Valenzuela due to the acts committed by state agents in order to obtain his statement on his alleged participation in the commission of a crime have been proven, fulfilling the three elements that this Court has listed. Therefore, the Court concludes that Mr. Valenzuela Ávila was subjected to acts of torture after his arrest, when he was already in the custody of the State, in violation of Article 5(2) of the American Convention. 196. Furthermore, this Court notes that the Commission also alleged the violation of Article 11 of the American Convention. In this regard, this Court has indicated that although this article is entitled "Right to Privacy", its content includes, among others, the protection of private life, which includes, among other protected areas, sexual life 159 and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings, 160 for this reason, sexual violence such as rape can suppose an interference in the most personal and intimate aspects of a person's private life.161 Based on the foregoing, the Court in this case considers that the rape perpetrated on Mr. Valenzuela entailed an intrusion on his privacy. 197. Consequently, regarding the elements considered in this analysis, the Court finds that after his arrest on May 27, 1998, Mr. Valenzuela was subjected to acts of physical torture and sexual violence, in accordance with the three constituent elements cited, as established by this Court in its case law. 198. Secondly, this Court will refer to the alleged torture suffered by Mr. Valenzuela on June 17 and 18, 2001. In this regard, this Court notes that Mr. Valenzuela filed a writ of habeas corpus on July 11, 2001, in which he requested a medical evaluation, as well as the cessation of abuse (supra para. 88). In said appeal he argued that: [On] June seventeen of the year two thousand and one at night I was subjected to torture and harassment in which I was required to give information regarding the death of the Prosecutor [SJR] for which I was tried and I am sentenced to the death penalty in these acts I was the object of death threats, my body is injured and I still have scars and impediments in my upper limbs, and in my sexual organs, as a result of said abuse to which I was subjected, by people who identified themselves as members of the Criminal Investigation Service of the National Civil Police. 199. In addition, this Court notes that Mr. PRA, who was detained in the Preventive Detention Center for Men, stated that “when they opened the prison of hell (sic), they left and when they recaptured [them] , [they] were transferred to preventive custody, while Tirso Román In this regard, this Court recalls that “sexual rape […] must also be understood as 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.” Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 310. 157 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 124, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, supra, para. 192. 158 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 128, and Case of Rosendo Cantú and Others v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 118. 159 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 129, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, supra, para. 179. 160 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 129, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, supra, para. 179. 161 Cf. Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 367, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, 196. supra, para. 179. 156 48