21 where it was used as a method of investigation. 52 In particular, the CVR established that the actions taken by the State included a pattern of detentions consisting, first, in the violent arrest of the victim accompanied by the search of his or her home using the same violent methods. The individual arrested was blindfolded or their face was covered totally. The person was then taken to a police or military post, or to a place of confinement, which might or might not be a legal detention center, where their fate was decided. On the way, they were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. As reasons for the increase of torture, the CVR identified the declarations of a state of emergency; the excessive powers granted to the Police and Armed Forces, including the possibility of keeping detainees incommunicado, which in many cases “extended to conversations with their lawyer,” and the actions of the agents of justice. d) In his 2004 report, the Ombudsman emphasized that sexual violence was used against men and women, and the assailant’s objective was to obtain information or to intimidate, to punish (for acts that had really or presumably been committed) or to humiliate the victims. Thus, the sexual violence perpetrated in the context of the anti-insurgency efforts in Peru constituted a form of torture or degrading treatment prohibited by international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and domestic law. 53 A.4. The practice of rape and other forms of sexual violence against women at the time of the facts 62. According to the CVR’s report, during the conflict in Peru numerous acts of sexual violence were perpetrated against women by State agents and members of subversive groups and, although there were cases of sexual violence against men, it was mostly women who were victims of such acts, which “allows [the CVR] to speak of ‘gender-based violence’ during the armed conflict in Peru, because the sexual violence affected women merely because they were women.” Specifically, with regard to acts of rape, the CVR concluded that around 83% of these could be attributed to the State, and around 11% to the subversive groups (Shining Path and the MRTA). 63. Regarding the State’s actions, the CVR concluded that sexual violence “was a generalized or systematic practice” that was “surreptitiously tolerated, but in some cases openly permitted by the immediate superiors in certain circles.” 54 It took place during military raids, but also within certain establishments of the Army and of the Police Forces. According to the CVR’s conclusions, sexual violence against women affected a significant number of women detained owing to their real or presumed personal involvement in the conflict. It also affected those women whose partners were real or supposed members of the subversive groups. Even women who were searching for family members and/or reporting cases of the violation of their human rights were victims of types of sexual violence, as a punishment or reprisal. In light of the information gathered, the CVR concluded that rape was a reiterated and persistent practice that occurred in the context of the above-mentioned sexual violence. Similarly, expert witness María Jennie Dador stated that “at the time the reported facts occurred […] there was a pattern of sexual violence and rape against women which was a systematic practice when they were detained and confined in the detention centers of the country’s different departments, including Lima.” 55 52 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 86.2, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 58. 53 Cf. Ombudsman’s Report No. 80, "Violencia Política en el Peru: 1980-1996. Un acercamiento desde la perspectiva de género," February 2004 (evidence file, folio 4356). 54 Cf. Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 68. 55 Affidavit made by expert witness María Jennie Dador on March 25, 2014 (merits file, folio 988).