- 68 - Convention of Belém do Pará establishes State obligations to prevent, punish and eradicate violence against women275 and these specify and supplement the obligations of the State in relation to compliance with the rights recognized in Articles 5 and 11 of the Convention.276 In light of the specific obligations under the Convention of Belém do Pará, in cases of violence against women, States must take comprehensive measures that are enforced with due diligence, and possess an appropriate protective legal framework, which is enforced effectively, and prevention policies and practices that allow it to act effectively to address complaints. 277 Also, Articles 1 and 6 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture reinforce the absolute prohibition of torture and the obligation of the States to prevent and to punish any act or attempt to commit torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in the sphere of its jurisdiction. B.2.a Sexual violence and rape 181. In keeping with international case law and taking into account the provisions of the Convention of Belém do Pará, the Court has considered that sexual violence is constituted by actions of a sexual nature that are committed against an individual without their consent, and that in addition to including the physical invasion of the human body may include acts that do not involve penetration or event any physical contact. 278 182. Also, following the prevailing jurisprudence and legal criteria in international criminal law and comparative criminal law, this Court has considered that rape is any act of vaginal or anal penetration, without the victim’s consent, using parts of the attacker’s body or objects, as well as oral penetration by the penis.279 For an act to be considered rape, it is sufficient that penetration occurs, however superficial this may be, in the terms described above. 280 Additionally, it should be understood that the vaginal penetration refers to penetration with any part of the attacker’s body or objects of any genital orifice, including the major and minor labia, as well as the vaginal orifice. This interpretation conforms to the concept that any type of penetration, however superficial it The Convention of Belém do Pará defines violence against women in its Article 1 as “any act or conduct, based on gender, which causes death or physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, whether in the public or the private sphere.” 275 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 346, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 131. 276 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 258, and Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2015. Series C No. 307, para. 108. 277 278 See, inter alia, Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 306; Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 191, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C No. 333, para. 246. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 310; Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 192, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C No. 333, para. 247. 279 Cf. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, Judgment of December 10, 1998, case No. IT-95-17/1-T, para. 185; International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al., Judgment of February 22, 2001, case No. IT-96-23-T and IT-96-23/1-T, paras. 437 and 438; International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al., Judgment on Appeal of June 12, 2002, case No. IT-96-23-T and IT-96-23/1-T, para. 127. 280