27 doctor, who recommended that he undergo a surgical procedure which was not able to prevent the loss of vision in his eye, given the time that had transpired since the injury occurred. 101. The State, for its part, claims that the admissibility of Article 5 of the American Convention in Admissibility Report No. 19/05 is linked to the purported lack of investigation of the injuries suffered by the alleged victim. It indicates that on October 17, 2008, the complaint was definitively closed because Mr. Quispealaya’s statement could not be taken because his whereabouts were unknown, and because the period of his disability and the medical attention that he required could not be established by forensic-legal report and none was prepared when the events occurred. It sustains that in order for an act to be torture, the perpetrator must be a public official or someone who acts with a public official’s consent or acquiescence, an element that has not been established in the present case, as the criminal responsibility of noncommissioned officer Hilaquita Quispe was never determined. It alleges that the mere presence of a State agent is not a sufficient element to characterize the acts as the crime of torture, given that other elements must also be present, such as the intent to cause the victim pain or grave suffering, as well as one of the objectives that Peruvian law establishes. 102. The Commission observes that the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture is part of the Inter-American corpus juris that should help this Commission to determine the content and scope of the general disposition contained in Article 5(2) of the American Convention. 102 Specifically, Article 2 of that Convention defines torture as: any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish. 103. According to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American system, in order for an act to be characterized as torture, the following elements must concur: i) the act must have been committed by a public official or by a private individual at the instigation or with the acquiescence of a public official,103 ii) the act must have been intentional, iii) the act must have caused intense physical or mental suffering, and iv) it must have been committed with a certain aim or purpose.104 The Inter-American Court has established that “the threats and real danger of submitting a person to physical injuries produces, in certain circumstances, a moral anguish of such degree that it may be considered psychological torture.”105 104. The Commission observes that, according to the proven facts, the complaints presented by Mr. Quispealaya about the manner in which the events that gave rise to the present case occurred 102 I/A Ct. H.R., Case of Tibi V. Ecuador. Judgment of 7 September 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 145. 103 IACHR, Report No. 5/96, Case 10.970, Merits, Raquel Martin Mejía, Perú, 1 March 1996, 3. analysis. 104 IACHR, Report No. 5/96, Case 10.970, Merits, Raquel Martin Mejía, Perú, 1 March 1996, section 3 (Analysis) and I/A Ct. H.R., Case of Bueno Alves. Judgment of 11 May 2007. Series C. No. 164, para. 79. 105 I/A Ct. H.R. Case of del Penal Miguel Castro Castro. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 25 November 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 272, Case of Baldeón García. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 6 April 2006. Series C No. 147 para. 119; Case of Tibi. Judgment of 7 September 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 147; Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of 27 November 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 92.