- 66 - limited by Article 15 of the Convention to national security, public safety or public order, or to protect public health or morals or the rights or freedom of others) and be necessary and proportionate.261 175. In this case, although it is true that some protesters resorted to violence, the seven women referred to above were carrying out peaceful activities. In this regard, the right to freedom of peaceful assembly is held by each individual participating in an assembly. Acts of sporadic violence or offences by some should not be attributed to others whose intentions and behaviour remain peaceful in nature.262 Therefore, the State authorities must spare no effort to distinguish between individuals who are violent or potentially violent, and peaceful protesters. 263 The proper management of assemblies requires the protection and enjoyment of a broad range of rights by all the parties involved.264 In addition, even if participants in an assembly are not peaceful and as a result forfeit their right to peaceful assembly, they retain all the other rights, subject to the normal limitations.265 176. Based on the above, in the case of Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio, Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo, Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno, Angélica Patricia Torres Linares, Claudia Hernández Martínez, Mariana Selvas Gómez and Georgina Edith Rosales Gutiérrez, the use of force also constituted an inappropriate restriction of their right of assembly recognized in Article 15 of the Convention. B.2 The sexual violence and rape committed against the eleven women and its classification as torture in this case 177. Article 5(1) of the Convention recognizes the right to personal integrity, physical, mental and moral in general terms. Meanwhile, Article 5(2) establishes, specifically, the absolute prohibition to subject someone to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, as well as the right of persons deprived of their liberty to be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.266 The Court understands that any violation of Article 5(2) of See, inter alia, The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, paras. 35 and 37, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257, para. 273; Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 120; Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2011. Series C No. 238, para. 43, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 168. 261 Joint report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on the proper management of assemblies of February 4, 2016, A/HRC/31/66, para. 20, and ECHR, Case of Ziliberberg v. Moldova, No. 61821/00. Judgment of February 1, 2005. 262 263 ECHR, Case of Gsell v. Switzerland, No.12675/05. Judgment of October 8, 2009, para. 60. Joint report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on the proper management of assemblies of February 4, 2016, A/HRC/31/66, para. 8. 264 Joint report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on the proper management of assemblies of February 4, 2016, A/HRC/31/66, para. 9. 265 Cf. Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 129, and Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348, para. 169. 266