164. In that regard, all of the foregoing elements taken together lead the Commission to conclude that the disappearance and execution of Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval are attributable to the State and, therefore, that the State violated the rights to legal personality, life, right to humane treatment and personal liberty established in Articles 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the American Convention in relation to the obligations under Article 1(1) of same. As the Court has held, faced with multiple, consistent circumstantial evidence and the lack of a proper investigation by the State (cf. infra, pars. 197 et seq.) to conclude otherwise would allow the State to shelter behind its negligence and the ineffectiveness of the criminal in investigation in order to evade international responsibility.217 ii. Alleged Torture 165. 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.218 Said prohibition remains valid even under the most difficult circumstances, such as war, threat of war, the fight against terrorism and other crimes, state of siege, or a state of emergency, civil commotion or domestic conflict, suspension of constitutional guarantees, domestic political instability or other public emergencies or catastrophes.219 166. In this case, the Commission notes that the parties disagree over whether or not Manuel Guillermo Omeara was tortured before he died. While the family members said that they saw that the corpse's hands were tied and it bore signs of torture, including missing fingernails and teeth, torture marks on the testicles, and acid burns on the body (cf. supra, par. 74), the State said that no such injuries were recorded in the autopsy report prepared by the National Institute of Legal Medicine and that, on the contrary, the victim had "long, dirty nails," and that there were no injuries on the thorax and abdomen; it only mentioned the existence of "indentations" on the wrists (see footnote 114). 167. With respect to these facts, the Commission notes that in addition to the statements of the family members, the alleged existence of these wounds was reported by a lawyer to the Prosecutor General's Office, the Ombudsman's Office, and the DAS (cf. supra, par. 75). The Commission finds that in light of the family’s discrepancy, on August 9, 1995, the exhumation was ordered of the body of Manuel Guillermo Omeara in the investigation at the domestic level. However, the Commission has no evidence that said procedure was carried out or, if it was, of its findings. 168. The Commission considers that although it is proved that the victim's hands were tied, the absence of a definitive pronouncement in the domestic investigation on the other injuries constitutes an obstacle—attributable to the State—to determining if those injuries actually existed. Nevertheless, the Commission considers that given the plurality of offenses that forced disappearance entails, that act constituted a violation of the victim's right to humane treatment in which the sequence of what happened to Guillermo Omeara, in terms of being arbitrarily detained, forced into a truck, having his hands tied, and subsequently enduring the fear that he was going to be executed, as indeed he was, are sufficient for it to be reasonably concluded that he suffered most terribly220 at the uncertainty of what would happen to him and 217 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gonzalez Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012, Series C No. 240, par.132; I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, par. 97. 218 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bueno-Alves. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164. par. 76; I/A Court H.R., Miguel Castro Castro Prison Case. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160. par. 271; I/A Court H.R., Case of Baldeón García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147. par. 117. 219 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bueno-Alves. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164. par. 76; I/A Court H.R., Miguel Castro Castro Prison Case. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160. par. 271; I/A Court H.R., Case of Baldeón García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147. par. 117. 220The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, pars. 162-163; I/A Court H.R., Case of the 19 Merchants v. Colombia, Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, par. 150; IACHR, Report No. 63/0, Prada González and Bolaño Castro v. Colombia, Case 11.710, par. 34; Report 33/04, Jailton Neri da Fonseca v. Brazil. 40