12. They also argue that when he gave a statement to the Public Ministry, Luis Alberto Rojas Marín was subjected to pressure, intimidation, and questioning related to his sexual orientation. They note that the Office of the Prosecutor had been explicit in noting that the statements by the alleged victim on the acts of sexual violence suffered were not credible and that, given his sexual orientation, he may have had relations with other persons and then blamed the police agents. 13. They argue that the State breached its duty to implement measures aimed at establishing a process for the judicial clarification of the conduct alleged. The Prosecutor’s Office was said to have rejected the request to investigate those responsible or to file any charges for the crime of torture, all despite the evidence produced. According to the petitioners, the Prosecutor’s Office had considered that the facts alleged were not committed with criminal intent, nor with the subjective element of special intent to obtain a confession or information, to punish, to intimidate, or to coerce any person, which is presumably required by Article 321 of the Criminal Code in force in Peru for prosecuting for acts of torture. Nonetheless, the petitioners argue that the police agents said to have detained and tortured the alleged victim continuously asked him about his brother’s whereabouts, since there was an arrest warrant for his brother for the crime of homicide. In addition, they argue that the abuses were committed with the intent of punishing the alleged victim for his sexual orientation. 14. On March 24, 2008, the Public Ministry ordered an investigation opened solely to clarify the alleged commission of the crime of aggravated rape (violación sexual agravada) and abuse of authority. On July 23, 2008, the Office of the Second Provincial Prosecutor of the Province of Ascope rejected the request to expand the investigation to alleged acts of torture committed against Luis Alberto Rojas Marín. This decision was confirmed on August 28, 2008, by the Office of the First Superior Prosecutor for the Judicial District of La Libertad. In addition, the nullity action filed against this decision was found to be inadmissible on procedural grounds on October 15, 2008. 15. With respect to this, they add that the prosecutors and judges often characterize acts that constitute torture as a crime of abuse of authority. They indicate that Article 321 of the Criminal Code is too restrictive with respect to the subjective element, and that it is clearly at odds with Article 2 of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, which has been ratified by Peru, which establishes that torture can be committed for any number of motives, including “for any other purpose.” In this connection, they argue that the motives of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation had not been considered as motives of acts of torture in the Peruvian judicial system. 16. Moreover, they argue that the State breached its duty to administer justice in relation to the facts alleged, given that the process had culminated with a dismissal order on January 9, 2009, in response to the request by the Second Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Ascope, on October 20, 2008. They argue that the dismissal threw out the allegations regarding the crime of abuse of authority, based on the provision that authorizes taking any person without papers to a police office to obtain their full identification; had called into question the truth of the statements by the alleged victim; and dismissed the allegations with respect to aggravated rape. They argue that this decision was appealed by the alleged victim, but the appeal was thrown out on procedural formalities. Even so, they argue that in any event this remedy was not adequate or effective for considering the argument of torture, and therefore they are not required to exhaust it. 17. The petitioners also invoked remedies aimed at clarifying the irregular conduct of two prosecutors in the case, said to have discriminated against the alleged victim because of his sexual orientation. They argue that on March 28, 2008, a complaint was filed against the prosecutorial officials associated with the investigation before the Office of Internal Control of the Public Ministry for La Libertad and Santa, for the crimes of abuse of authority, coercion, and denial of justice. Specifically, a complaint was filed against the prosecutor who received his statement, who is said to have intimidated the alleged victim and pressured him to minimize what had happened; and against the deputy prosecutor, who had entered the doctor’s office and had always expressed skepticism that the injuries were the result of rape. On July 24, 2009, the Superior Prosecutor in charge of the case had considered well-founded the complaint in relation to abuse of authority. Nonetheless, on November 19, 2010, the Office of the Attorney General dismissed the complaint due to lack of merit, and 3