3.3 Scope of Application The Inter-American Court and Commission, like their regional and international counterparts, have interpreted the prohibition of torture and illtreatment in the ACHR and IACPPT widely, to ensure the fullest protection of individuals. 3.3.1 The absolute nature of the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment 3 The Inter-american Regional System The Court considers that reparation of the damage caused by a violation of human rights requires, whenever possible, the reestablishment of the situation before the violation. If this is not possible, the Court will order “adoption of a series of measures that, in addition to ensuring respect for the rights that were abridged, provide reparation of the consequences caused by the violations and pay compensation for the damages caused in the pertinent case.”501 The InterAmerican Court goes much further than other international bodies in the types of reparations it will order. For example, in Vargas Areco v Paraguay, in addition to pecuniary damages, the Court ordered that the State was, among other things, to organise an official public act to acknowledge its international liability and apologise to the victim’s relatives, prepare audiovisual presentations on the case for elementary and secondary schools to illustrate the risks of compulsory military service, and name a street after the victim.502 The right to personal integrity is included in the list of non-derogable rights under Article 27(2) of the ACHR; States can make no exception to this right even in extreme situations “such as war, the threat of war, the struggle against terrorism, and any other crimes, state of siege or of emergency, internal disturbances or conflict, suspension of constitutional guarantees, domestic political instability, or other public disasters or emergencies,” or when the life of a country is threatened.503 Similarly, as discussed in section 3.2.5, the judicial guarantees Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v Peru (2004), op. cit., §189; Goiburú and Others v Paraguay (2006), op. cit., §§141–42; Urrutia v Guatemala (2003), op. cit., §143; Ximenes-Lopes v Brazil (2006), op. cit., §177 502 Vargas Areco v Paraguay (2006), op. cit., §136(d). 503 Article 27(1) ACHR. See also Juvenile Reeducation Institute v Paraguay (2004), op. cit., §157; Tibi v Ecuador (2004), §143; Urrutia v Guatemala (2003), op. cit., §89; Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v Peru (2004), op. cit., §111; De la Cruz Flores v Peru (2004), op. cit., §125; Berenson-Mejía v Peru, IACHR (Series C) No. 119, judgement of 25 November 2004, §100; Cantoral-Benavides v Peru (2000), op. cit., §95; Servellón-García v Honduras (2006), op. cit., §97; Baldeón-García v Peru (2006), op. cit., §117. See generally Robert Goldman, Claudio M. Grossman, Claudia Martin and Diego Rodríguez-Pinzón, The International Dimension of Human Rights, Inter-American Development Bank, 2001, section IIIA, p. 49. 501 111