26 resistance (cf. Eur. Cour H.R., Case of Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, para. 167). That situation is exacerbated by the vulnerability of a person who is unlawfully detained (cf. Eur. Court HR, Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, para. 36). Any use of force that is not strictly necessary to ensure proper behavior on the part of the detainee constitutes an assault on the dignity of the person (cf. Ibid., para. 38), in violation of Article 5 of the American Convention. The exigencies of the investigation and the undeniable difficulties encountered in the anti-terrorist struggle must not be allowed to restrict the protection of a person's right to physical integrity. 58. Although the Commission contended in its application that the victim was raped during her detention, after examination of the file and, given the nature of this fact, the accusation could not be substantiated. However, the other facts alleged, such as incommunicado detention, being exhibited through the media wearing a degrading garment, solitary confinement in a tiny cell with no natural light, blows and maltreatment, including total immersion in water, intimidation with threats of further violence, a restrictive visiting schedule (supra, para. 46 c., d., e., k. and l.), all constitute forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in the terms of Article 5(2) of the American Convention. A study of the arguments and evidence proffered shows grave and convergent acts that were not refuted by the State and give reason to believe that cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment was meted out in the instant case of Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, in violation of her right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5 of the American Convention. XIV 59. The Commission claimed that in the trials conducted in the military criminal courts for the crime of treason and in the civil courts for the crime of terrorism, against Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, the Peruvian State violated the following rights and guarantees of due process enshrined in the American Convention: Right to a hearing by an Independent and Impartial Tribunal (Article 8(1)); Right to be Presumed Innocent (Article 8(1) and 8(2)); Right to Full Equality during the proceedings (Article 8(2)); Right to Defend Oneself (Article 8(2)(d)); Right not to be Compelled to be a Witness Against Oneself and not to be Subject to Coercion of any Kind (Articles 8(2)(g) and 8(3)); and the Judicial Guarantee not to be subjected to Double Jeopardy (Article 8(4)). 60. The Court deems it unnecessary to rule on the Commission's argument that the military tribunals that tried Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo lacked independence and impartiality, requirements embodied in Article 8(1) of the Convention as prerequisites of due process, inasmuch as Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo was acquitted by that military court and, therefore, the possible failure to meet those requirements did not cause her legal injury in that regard, irrespective of the other violations which will be examined in the following paragraphs of this Judgment. 61. First and foremost, in applying Decree-Laws Nº 25.659 (crime of treason) and Nº 25.475 (crime of terrorism) enacted by the State, Peru's military courts violated Article 8(1) of the Convention with regard to the requirement to be tried by a competent court. Indeed, in rendering a final judgment acquitting the defendant Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo of the crime of treason, the military court lacked jurisdiction to keep her in detention, let alone to declare in the verdict of acquittal of last instance, that "there being evidence of the commission of the crime of terrorism, it orders the case file to be remitted to the civil courts, and the defendant to be placed in the custody of the competent authority." In so doing, the military tribunal acted ultra vires, usurped jurisdiction, and arrogated to itself the powers of the regular judicial organs, inasmuch as Decree-Law Nº 25.475 (crime of