In Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v Peru, the Inter-American Court, citing the European Court, indicated that the “analysis of the gravity of the acts that may constitute cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or torture, is relative and depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age, and health of the victim, among others.”461 Thus, as in the European system, particular vulnerability of the victim may be the aggravating factor that transforms into torture treatment which might otherwise have been classified as cruel, inhuman or degrading. The Court has maintained that the distinction between torture and other prohibited acts is not rigid, but rather evolves in light of growing demands for protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. Thus, an act which in the past may have been deemed cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, could in the future constitute torture.462 3 The Inter-american Regional System on the severity of the treatment, noting that “[t]he violation of the right to physical and psychological integrity of persons is a category of violation that has several gradations and embraces treatment ranging from torture to other types of humiliation or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment with varying degrees of physical and psychological effects caused by endogenous and exogenous factors which must be proven in each specific situation.”459 In Juvenile Reeducation Institute v Paraguay, the Court emphasised that physical harm is not required; “creating a threatening situation or threatening an individual with torture may, in some circumstances, constitute inhumane treatment.”460 3.1.3 Humane treatment of detainees Article XXV of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man provides in part: “Every individual who has been deprived of his liberty… has the right to humane treatment during the time he is in custody.” This is supplemented by the prohibition in Article XXVI of “cruel, infamous or unusual punishment.” Loayza Tamayo v Peru, IACHR (Series C) No. 33, judgement of 17 September 1997, §57. Juvenile Reeducation Institute v Paraguay, IACHR (Series C) No. 112, judgement of 2 September 2004, §167. 461 Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v Peru (2004), op. cit., §113. 462 Cantoral-Benavides v Peru (2000), op. cit. 459 460 99