163. Lastly, regarding the purpose, the Court has considered, in general, that rape, like torture, seeks, among other objectives, to intimidate, degrade, humiliate, punish or control the person subjected to it.211 The representatives argued that the abuse was inflicted for discriminatory purposes. In this regard, expert witness Juan Méndez indicated that “to determine whether a case of torture has been motivated by prejudice against LGBTI people,” the following indicators can be used: “the method and characteristics of the violence inspired by discrimination. For example, in cases of LGBTI people, anal rape or the use of other forms of sexual violence”; “discriminatory insults, comments or gestures by the perpetrators during the perpetration of the conduct or in its immediate context, referring to the sexual orientation or gender identity of the victim” or “the absence of other reasons.”212 In this case, one of the aggressions suffered by the presumed victim was anal rape. On this point, expert witness María Mercedes Gómez indicated that rape carried out using “an instrument that symbolically represents authority [such as] the police baton, […] sends the symbolic message […] of restoring a masculinity that is threatened by the perception of the victim as not complying with the established order of masculinity.”213 164. In addition, the violence use by the state agents against Ms. Rojas Marín included stereotypical insults and threats of rape. Thus, the Court notes that on several occasions the agents said “cabro”, “concha de tu madre”, “te gusta la pinga” [you like cock], “maricón de mierda,” [fucking fag] and “they should have put you in a cell so that everyone could fuck you.”214 The Court considers that the anal rape and the comments relating to sexual orientation also reveal a discriminatory purpose, so that this was an act of violence based on prejudice. 165. Furthermore, the Court notes that the case can be considered a “hate crime” because it is clear that the aggression against the victim was based on her sexual orientation; in other words, this crime not only damaged the rights of Azul Rojas Marín, but was also a message to the whole LGBTI community, a threat to the freedom and dignity of this entire social group. 166. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the series of abuses and aggressions suffered by Azul Rojas Marín, including the rape, constituted an act of torture by state agents. 167. Consequently, the State violated the rights to personal integrity, privacy, and not to be subjected to torture established in Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 11 of the Convention, in relation to the obligations to respect and to ensure these rights without discrimination, established in Article 1(1) of this instrument and Articles 1 and 6 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. Cf. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 117, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 193. 211 212 Cf. Affidavit of Juan Ernesto Méndez of August 1 2019 (evidence file, folios 3401 and 3402) 213 Cf. Statement made by María Mercedes Gómez during the public hearing held in this case. Cf. Verbal complaint made by Azul Rojas Marín at the Casa Grande Police Station on February 27, 2008 (evidence file, folio 2793); Statement made by Azul Rojas Marín at the Casa Grande Police Station on February 28, 2008 (evidence file, folio 2811); Expansion of the statement made by Azul Rojas Marín at the Casa Grande Police Station on March 6, 2008 (evidence file, folio 2815); Video 1 of the inspection and reconstruction procedure on August 15, 2008 (evidence file, folder of audiovisual material, minutes 00:00 to 00:22, 01:10 to 02:38, 4:02 to 4:38 and 11:11 to 12:48), and Statement made by Azul Rojas Marín at the public hearing on merits before the Inter-American Commission on December 1, 2016. 214 44