Teresa Fernández Paredes 75 need to be able to ask the right questions using gender-sensitive language and to assess the psycho­ logical trauma that comes with violence, in particular sexual violence.”102 The Nairobi Declaration on Women’s and Girls’ Right to a Remedy and Reparation rightly affirms that the core elements of these rights include truth-telling, criminal justice, and guarantees of non-repetition. Victims of all forms of gender-based torture and ill-treatment should also be entitled to reparations. And, they should have access to medical services and support programs to treat the psychological trauma caused by sexual violence.103 The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) has established in its jurisprudence that States have the obligation to investigate reports of acts of tor­ ture or inhuman or degrading treatment. See, for example, the case of Inga Abramova v. Belarus.104 The CAT, too, in addition to finding sexual violence committed by State officials against women detainees to be torture, has confirmed States’ obligation to launch a speedy and impartial investi­ gation of cases of rape or sexual violence as torture, and that failing to do so violates Article 1 read in conjunction with Articles 12, 13, 14, and 16 of the Convention.105 See, for example, the case of Saadia Ali v. Tunisia.106 2. The obligation of investigation in the Inter-American Human Rights System States’ obligation to conduct investigations of torture with a gender perspective, particularly in cases of rape and other forms of sexual violence committed against women, derives from Articles 1.1 and 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights as well as provisions of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Ibid. Women´s Link Worldwide y Clínica Jurídica por la Justicia Social de la Universidad de Valencia. Amicus Curiae ante la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Caso 11.157. Espinoza v. Perú, para. 22. 2014 104 The complainant, an activist who was detained during the “European March” campaign, complained that the conditions of her detention constituted inhuman or degrading treatment and that Belarusian authorities failed to investigate several complaints she filed with domestic courts. The CEDAW Committee found that her detention for five days in deplorable conditions, in facilities staffed exclusively by men, constituted genderbased inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 1 of the Convention and a violation by Belarus of its obligations under Articles 2 (a), (b), (d), (e), and (f), 3, and 5 (a), read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Convention. The CEDAW Committee went on to express its “grave concern about inhuman and degrading treatment of women activists during detention, and urge[d] the State party to ensure that the complaints submitted by those women are promptly and effectively investigated.” CEDAW Committee. Inga Abramova v. Belarus, Communication No. 238/2009. CEDAW/C /49/D/20/2008, September 27, 2011. 105 Women´s Link Worldwide y Clínica Jurídica por la Justicia Social de la Universidad de Valencia. Amicus Curiae ante la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Caso 11.157. Espinoza v. Perú, para. 27. 2014 106 The complainant was detained while attempting to obtain an official document from Tunisian authorities. She was forced to strip and brutally beaten in front of some fifty male detainees. Criminal proceedings were initiated against her for attacking an official and she was sentenced to three months in prison. The complainant appealed the conviction, but her appeal was dismissed without explanation, so she filed a complaint with the CAT arguing that her right to reparations under Article 14 of the Convention against Torture had been violated. The Committee found that the State denied the complainant any form of reparation by failing to launch an investigation immediately. It recalled that Article 14 of the Convention not only recognizes the right to fair and adequate compensation but also requires States parties to ensure that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress, which should cover all the harm suffered by the victim, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation of the victim and measures to guarantee that there is no recurrence of the violations. However, it noted that “Given the length of time that has elapsed since the complainant attempted to initiate proceedings at the domestic level, and given the lack of information from the State party concerning the completion of the investigation still under way, the Committee concludes that the State party has also breached its obligations under Article 14 of the Convention.” CAT. Saadia Ali v. Tunisia, Communication No. 291/2006, CAT/C/41/D/291/2006, November 26, 2008. 102 103