81 inhuman and degrading treatment, if it was not torture.” She supported her argument and petition on “the consistent case law” of the European Court of Human Rights which, in cases relating to sterilizations performed on women who had not given their prior, full, free and informed consent, has established the perpetration of inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the European Convention. 260. She added that, “as the doctrine and case law of international human rights law establishes, for an act to be considered one of the conducts prohibited by Article 5(2) of the [American Convention], special attention must be paid to the situation and particular circumstances of the victim.” In this case, reviewing I.V.’s life history, she affirmed that “[a] woman with a history of torture in Peru; arbitrary imprisonment because of her ideas; persecution that obliged her to take refuge in a foreign country; losses of people close to her in violent circumstances […], this is someone with regard to whom the threshold to consider her a victim of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is much lower than that of most people […], in addition to the severity of the harm caused to I.V., her intense suffering for more than 15 years as an aftereffect of the forced sterilization to which she was subjected without being consulted and without obtaining her prior, full, free and informed consent, and in light of the preceding considerations, especially those formulated by the European Court’s Rapporteurs on Torture, it is clear that the right of I.V. contained in Article 5(2) of the [American Convention] was also violated.” 261. The State indicated that “[t]he arguments presented by the representative, attributing presumed facts to the State combine two contexts: the first, regarding the psycho-social situation of I.V. as a result of the actions carried out by the DINCOTE in Peru, and the second, the catharsis undergone by I.V. presumably as a result of the tubal ligation.” In this regard, it indicated that: (i) the alleged acts of torture were committed in Peru; (ii) the surgical procedure of tubal ligation was a voluntary decision by I.V., and not an act of torture; (iii) the presumed acts of torture that took place in Peru cannot be compared to the said surgical procedure, and (iv) the Bolivian State should not have to repair the consequences of the alleged acts of torture. Consequently, the State repudiated the claim “to attribute international responsibility [to the Bolivian State] for the facts narrated by the representative, which all respond to actions allegedly suffered in Peru, which reveals that they occurred outside the jurisdiction of the Bolivian State […].” B. Considerations of the Court 262. The Court recalls that the representative may allege the violation of rights other than those submitted to the Court’s consideration by the Commission, provided they are based on the factual framework established by the latter (supra para. 48). 263. Historically, the framework of protection against torture and ill-treatment has been developed in response to acts and practices that were verified, above all, during interrogations in the course of an inquiry or procedure in relation to the perpetration of a crime, as well as in the context of deprivation of liberty, as an instrument of punishment or intimidation. However, the international community has gradually come to recognize that torture and other inhuman treatment can also occur in other contexts of custody, domination or control in which the victim is defenseless, such as in the sphere of health care and, specifically, reproductive health care services.340 In this regard, the Court underscores the significant role played by discrimination when analyzing whether violations of Cf. UN, Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy, Policies and practices that impact women’s reproductive rights and contribute to, cause or constitute violence against women, E/CN.4/1999/68/Add.4, January 21, 1999, para. 44; Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan E. Méndez, A/HRC/22/53, February 1, 2013, para. 15, and Committee against Torture, General Comment No. 2, Application of Article 2 by the States Parties, January 24, 2008, para. 15. 340