33 1. The States Parties undertake to prevent and punish torture in accordance with the terms of this Convention. [...] 6. In accordance with the terms of Article 1, the States Parties shall take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their jurisdiction. The States Parties shall ensure that all acts of torture and attempts to commit torture are offenses under their criminal law and shall make such acts punishable by severe penalties that take into account their serious nature. The States Parties likewise shall take effective measures to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment within their jurisdiction. [...] 83. Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, defines torture as: […] any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish. The same article adds that: The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not include the performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article. 84. In the previous chapter, it was concluded that the State violated the right to personal liberty of Maritza Urrutia by unlawfully and arbitrarily detaining her and keeping her outside judicial control. It is now necessary to determine whether, during the period of her detention, the right of Maritza Urrutia to humane treatment was violated, in accordance with Article 5 of the American Convention and Articles 1 and 6 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture. 85. With regard to the treatment that the State officials afforded to Maritza Urrutia while she was unlawfully and arbitrarily detained, the Court has considered proven that the alleged victim’s head was covered by a hood, she was kept handcuffed to a bed, in a room with the light on and the radio at full volume, which prevented her from sleeping. In addition, she was subjected to very prolonged interrogations, during which she was shown photographs of individuals who showed signs of torture or had been killed in combat and she was threatened that she would be found by her family in the same way. The State agents also threatened to torture her physically or to kill her or members of her family if she did not collaborate. To this end, they showed her photographs of herself and her family and correspondence from her to her former husband (supra para. 58.6). Lastly, Maritza Urrutia was obliged to film a video, which was subsequently broadcast by two Guatemalan television channels, in which she made a statement against her will, the contents of which she was forced to ratify at a press conference held after her release (supra paras. 58.8 and 58.9. 86. In this respect, the CEH Report concluded “that Maritza Urrutia suffered [the] violation of her right to humane treatment, owing to the torture committed by