25 Convention expressly refers in Articles 7(6) and 25(1), considered within the framework and the principles of Article 8, and also those necessary to the preservation of the rule of law, even during the state of exception that results from the suspension of guarantees (Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 38.) 51. Article 6 of Decree-Law Nº 25.659 (crime of treason) provides that [a]t no stage of the police investigation and the criminal proceedings may detainees implicated or prosecuted for the crime of terrorism, and covered by Decree-Law No. 25.474, file Guarantee Remedies, or petitions against the provisions of the present Decree-Law. The Court notes in its file on the case before it that the police notified Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo on February 6, 1993, that she was being apprehended in connection with "the crime of terrorism." The State has argued that while Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo lacked access to the remedy of habeas corpus, she could have sought other remedies, which, nonetheless, Peru did not specify. 52. The Court considers that, pursuant to Article 6 of Decree-Law Nº 25.659 (crime of treason), Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo did not have the right to file a petition for any guarantee to safeguard her personal liberty or challenge the lawfulness of her detention (supra, para. 46.c), irrespective of whether guarantees had or had not been suspended. 53. While Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo was held incommunicado and during her subsequent trial, she was unable to avail herself of guarantee remedies, which, in the view of this Court, may not be suspended. 54. With all the more reason, this Court deems it unlawful that Ms. María Elena LoayzaTamayo was kept in detention after the final judgment handed down by the military court on September 24, 1993, and until the order was issued for her to be bound over for trial was issued in the civil courts on October 8 of that year. The trial proceedings show that Article 6 of Decree-Law Nº 25.659 (crime of treason) was also applied during that period. 55. The Court therefore finds that Peru violated Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo's right to personal liberty and the guarantee of judicial protection enshrined, respectively, in Articles 7 and 25 of the American Convention. XIII 56. The Inter-American Commission claimed that Peru violated Ms. María Elena LoayzaTamayo's right to humane treatment, in breach of Article 5 of the Convention. 57. The 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. The European Court of Human Rights has declared that, even in the absence of physical injuries, psychological and moral suffering, accompanied by psychic disturbance during questioning, may be deemed inhuman treatment. The degrading aspect is characterized by the fear, anxiety and inferiority induced for the purpose of humiliating and degrading the victim and breaking his physical and moral