IV. ANALYSIS OF DUPLICATION OF PROCEDURES AND INTERNATIONAL RES JUDICATA, COLORABLE CLAIM, EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION Duplication of procedures and International res judicata: No Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 11 (Right to Privacy), 19 (Rights of the Child), 24 (Right to Equal Protection) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof; and Article 7 of the Belém do Pará Convention Yes; exception in Article 46.2(c) of the ACHR applies Yes, under the terms of Section VI Rights declared admissible Exhaustion of domestic remedies or applicability of an exception to the rule: Timeliness of the petition: V. ALLEGED FACTS 1. The petitioners declare that the alleged victim is an American and Colombian citizen living in Bolivia. They declare that between 2001 and 2002, at age 16 and living in the city of Cochabamba, she was sexually abused by her cousin (ten years older than her) on several occasions. They indicate that she was also mistreated and beaten, but that she hid this from her family due to the threats from the offender. In 2002, after noticing her severe physical and psychological decline, her parents took her on a trip to the United States so that she could see her siblings. It was then that they learned about the facts and returned to Bolivia to file a police report. They assert that the alleged victim was re-victimized by police officers, prosecutors and judges and that over fourteen years later the perpetrator is still free since no criminal conviction was ever imposed on him. 2. They claim that on July 15, 2002 the alleged victim’s father initially filed a complaint to the NGO Defence for Children International, which after a psychological exam of the alleged victim concluded that she had been sexually abused. Moreover, the Prosecutor’s Office demanded a medical examination, which was carried out on July 31, 2002, by a forensic physician and five male students without the consideration and care that was required, even though she cried during the whole procedure. The petitioners declare that throughout the investigations, she had to repeatedly give her account of the facts to the prosecutor, who often tried to blame her for provoking the sexual assault and who also threatened to imprison her if they found she was lying. 3. Moreover, they claim that the judicial authorities did not take any measures to keep the offender in pre-trial detention, putting the alleged victim’s personal integrity at risk. They say she was threatened and harassed and that there were two attempts to set fire to her house. They allege that on March 28, 2003, the Fourth Trial Court convicted the accused to seven years in prison for statutory rape, despite charges having been filed for rape. On June 5, 2003, after examining the appeals lodged by the parties, the First Criminal Chamber of the High Court of Cochabamba annulled the judgment and ordered another court to reconsider the matter. On July 2, 2004, after the alleged victim’s parents filed an appeal to vacate the judgment and two constitutional writs of amparo, the Constitutional Court annulled the proceedings and ordered the trial court to once again take the alleged victim’s statement in the presence of the accused’s defense counsel. 4. On September 27, 2005, the Second Trial Court acquitted the accused on the grounds that there were no signs of violence or threat, which, according to the judges, are elements required in order for the facts to constitute rape. Consequently, the alleged victim filed an appeal that was rejected by the First Criminal Chamber of Cochabamba on March 6, 2006. She later lodged an appeal to vacate the judgment, which the First Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court accepted, ruling that new oral proceedings were to be conducted. 5. During the third trial, the Third Trial Court ordered the victim to subject herself to a second forensic examanation, which was carried on August 20, 2008 (6 years after the first exam). The petitioners submit that the hearings did not take place since the accused fled to Colombia and was declared to be in default 2