Development of Inter-American System Standards System, where Article 1 recognizes that every human being has the right to life, liberty, and the security of his person.4 This was developed more precisely in 1969 when the American Convention on Human Rights was adopted by the Member States of the OAS.5 Article 5 of that instrument recognizes that every person has a right to have his physical, mental and moral integrity respected and that no one should be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.6 The most complete definition of torture is in the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture7 and the terms—as mentioned—are a little broader than those of the UN Convention against Torture.8 For example, one difference is that the Inter-American Convention does not require the suffering to be severe; that is one very important difference. And it also makes reference to any other purpose when it talks about the purpose or purposes element. It is more general and broad rather than “such purposes as,” which is the term used in the UN Convention. The content of the concept of torture has been developed by both the Inter-American Commission [on Human Rights] (IACHR) and the Court. I should mention, for example, that the first case where an international body adjudicating human rights violations, which in this case was the Inter-American Commission, established that rape constitutes torture was in the case of Raquel Martín de Mejía against Peru.12 And it took many years for the IACtHR to reach the same finding, which it did in the Fernández Ortega13 and Rosendo Cantú14 cases regarding Mexico, which I will mention a bit later. The practice of torture has not only been dealt with by the organs of the System, in this case by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which as you know has a broader mandate than that of the Court, which has to limit itself to the case before it and the evidence in the record. The Commission, on the other hand, has powers that allow it to conduct investigations, visit Member States, take a look at all sorts of situations, look at individual cases in the context of the broader political and social situations. If you look at the reports,15 specifically from the 70s and 80s, you will see that the Commission dealt very specifically with the issue of torture when it visited member states or when it analyzed the situation of human rights in member states—such as for example Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Argentina. The Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture also establishes a reporting system whereby Member States assume the responsibility of informing the IACHR, which has an analysis in its annual report on the development and the situation regarding torture in the Member States of the OAS.16 The American Convention did not determine the organ responsible for the application of this instrument in individual cases. However, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights determined that there were violations of the treaty on torture in the Case of Paniagua-Morales;17 in another case with respect to the same country, the Commission also found that the Guatemalan authorities incurred in violations of Articles 1, 6, and 8, because they had failed to adopt formal decisions to initiate a criminal investigation into the alleged perpetration of the crime of torture.18 This is what we will see in other cases where both the Commission and the Court have found that where the authorities are given notice that such actions are committed, and then they fail to conduct an effective investigation and to take all the measures that are part of their obligation to ensure and guarantee all human rights, they incur in international responsibility. Both the UN and OAS instruments include the material element of the intentional infliction of pain and suffering, as well as the purpose element mentioned. In addition to these elements, there are others such as the duration of the acts that cause the pain and suffering; the methods used; the social and political context; whether the victim was deprived of liberty; and other elements such as, for example, the victim’s age, sex, or any type of vulnerability. One of the examples in our system is a case brought against Brazil, the case of Damião Ximenes Lopes, where the Inter-American Court [of Human Rights] (IACtHR, Inter-American Court) found in its ruling that the victim was a mentally ill person who died in the hospital after suffering physical attacks and all kinds of abuse.9 In the judgment in the case, the Inter-American Court established that the personal features of an alleged victim of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment should be taken into consideration when determining whether his or her personal integrity has been violated, for such features may change the insight of his or her individual reality and therefore increase the suffering and sense of humiliation when the person is subjected to certain types of treatment.10 So this is important when it comes to circumstances of the victim and the manner in which the torture was inflicted. In regards to intentionality from the first cases of the IACtHR, this tribunal found that the violations do not require taking into account psychological factors to establish individual responsibility. In fact, it is not even necessary to determine the identity of the perpetrator; or rather, the important thing is to determine whether the violation took place with the acquiescence or support of the government, or if the state allowed the act to take place by failing to prevent it or to take measures to prevent it and to punish those responsible after the fact. So from that very first case, from the Velásquez Rodríguez case, the Inter-American Court found that it is not just the infliction of torture itself but subjecting a person to these official repressive bodies that practice torture and assassinations, that in itself is a violation of Article 5 of the American Convention.11 Building a Case Before the Inter-American System In talking about the type of evidence that is necessary or that can be brought before the organs in cases of torture, our system—the Inter-American System—is very open with respect to the types of evidence that it will allow. Both the Court and Commission have allowed, for example, documents, expert testimony, photographs, videos, affidavits, even newspapers or journalistic accounts, among others. And this is because the crime of torture is very difficult to prove, since it is a prohibited practice and it 35