Teresa Fernández Paredes 65 crime of torture, the Court noted that “rape may constitute torture even when it consists of a single act or takes place outside State facilities (...). Based on the foregoing, the Court concluded that the rape in this case entailed a violation of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú’s personal integrity, constituting an act of torture.”47 The Court reached similar conclusions in the Fernández Ortega case48. The Inter-American System clearly sanctions sexual violence carried out by public officials as acts of torture or ill treatment. The same strength has not been demonstrated against acts con­ ducted by non-State actors. Under the standard of due diligence articulated by the Court, States may incur responsibility under international human rights law where there is a failure to prevent or respond to certain acts or omissions of non-State actors. However, the tendency of the Court has been that of a reluctance to extend the coverage of the prohibition of torture to acts not directly carried out by the State. For example, it must be noted that Judge Medina Quiroga, in a separate opinion in the case Cotton Field, criticized the failure of the Court to label the acts as torture rather than ill treatment49. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the rape of a woman by State agents constituted torture for the first time in Aydin v. Turkey (1997).50 The applicant was subjected to a series of traumatic and humiliating experiences while detained by Turkish security forces. For three days, she was blindfolded, beaten, forced to strip, and raped.51 For the first time, the court found the rape of a detainee by a State official to be a particularly “abhorrent form of ill-treatment given the ease with which the offender can exploit the vulnerability and weakened resistance of his victim.” 52 The Court further noted that, “rape leaves deep psychological scars on the victim.”53 It ruled that the level of suffering occasioned by the rape and the others acts rises to the level of torture under Article 3 of the Convention. In the latter case of Maslova et al. v. Russia (2008), a woman was taken to a police station to be interrogated regarding a murder case. She was beaten by a policeman, electrocuted, suffocated, raped, and forced to perform oral sex on him. The Court, citing Aydin v. Turkey, held that the accumulation of acts of physical violence committed against the applicants and the particularly grave nature of the rape were equivalent to torture and therefore violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).54 However, regarding other acts of sexual violence committed by non-State agents, the ECtHR has not clearly found that these acts constitute torture. It is interesting that the Court asks States to carry out “a context-sensitive assessment (… that) provides effective protection, in particular, of children and other vulnerable persons”55. However, when it comes to recognizing gendered violence suf­ fered by women and girls as torture, the Court just refers to ill-treatment in a broader sense56. For Ibid., para 118. Op. cit. Fernández Ortega, para. 117-128 49 Concurring Opinion of Judge Cecilia Medina Quiroga in relation to the Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico of November of 16, 2009 50 Aydın v. Turkey, op. cit., para. 83. 51 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. 31-33. 2014 52 Ibid. and Maslova et al. v. Russia, Application No. 839/02, Judgment of January 24, 2008, para. 105. The ECtHR has furthermore held that rape causes severe psychological after-effects that do not improve over time in the same way the after-effects of other forms of physical or psychological violence can. 53 ECtHR, Maslova and Nalbandov v. Russia. Application No. 839/02, Judgment of January 24, 2008, Final. 07/07/2008. 54 Ibíd. 55 ECtHR, I.C. v. Romania, para. 51-52. 56 See, for example, I.C. v. Romania, P.M. v. Bulgaria, I.C. v. Moldova, D.J. v. Croatia, Y. v. Slovenia, MGC v. Romania, M. and M. v. Croatia. 47 48