ordered the case archived. The petitioners argue that this decision is not well-founded, shows bias in the justification of arbitrary and illegal acts committed by the prosecutors in the case, and is contrary to the law that established the authorization of persons other than the attending physician to perform the forensic exam. 18. As regards the arguments of law, the petitioners argue, first, that the treatment accorded Luis Alberto Rojas Marín while he was in police custody and the acts of sexual violence against him constitute violations of the right to humane treatment and the prohibition of torture and cruel and inhuman treatment, as per Article 5 of the American Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 19. Second, the petitioners argue that the acts of torture occurred in the context of an illegal, arbitrary detention with no judicial oversight, in violation of Articles 7(2), 7(3), and 7(5) of the American Convention. In this respect, they argue that the police agents violated the domestic legislation in relation to a detention for the purposes of identification, Article 205 of the New Code of Criminal Procedure, to the detriment of the alleged victim, since in his case the police agent who detained him (i) did not identify himself at the moment of the detention; (ii) did not allow him to go to his domicile so as to then show them his identification papers; (iii) the alleged victim was not engaged in grave acts meriting detention for not having one’s papers on one’s person; (iv) his detention lasted more than four hours, which is the limit established by law; (v) he was not allowed to communicate with any family member; and (vi) the authorities did not document the detention and entry of the alleged victim in the Registry Book (Libro-Registro). In addition, the petitioners argue that the alleged victim was not taken before a judge without delay, did not have access to a lawyer for his defense, and had not been examined by a physician upon entering and leaving the detention center, so as to be able to certify his health before and after his detention. In addition, as regards the detention of the alleged victim, they argue that it was not based on the conditions provided for in the Constitution of Peru, but rather by application of a lower-ranking legal provision. 20. Third, the petitioners argue that the arbitrary detention and acts of torture and cruel and inhuman treatment against Luis Alberto Rojas Marín while he was under the custody of the State are still in impunity. Therefore, they consider that the State breached its duty to investigate and judicially clarify the allegations of acts of torture and cruel and inhuman treatment, in keeping with the standards of due process and judicial protection found at Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, and the standards of prevention and effective punishment of torture, and of impartial investigation, as per the standards of Articles 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 21. Fourth, the petitioners allege that the acts of violence and discrimination that are the subject of the claim and the impunity associated with those acts constitute arbitrary and abusive interference in the person of Luis Alberto Rojas Marín and have had a negative impact on how he thinks of himself and his reputation, in violation of the protection of honor and dignity enshrined in Article 11(1) of the American Convention. 22. In addition, the petitioners argue that impunity in Peru is even more serious in the case of poor persons and peasants, like the alleged victim, due to his “situation of social vulnerability,” which is accentuated in the case of a gay person, considering the social rejection that exists in Peru with respect to that sexual orientation, particularly in the rural area of the country, where the alleged victim lives. 23. Finally, the petitioners allege that the facts show that Luis Alberto Rojas Marín was subjected to acts of discrimination because of his sexual orientation, both by the police agents involved in committing torture by means of sexual violence, and by the judicial officers who were dismissive of the complaints and statements of the alleged victim, interfered with the production of evidence, and trivialized the seriousness of the case. The petitioners allege that as a result of the negative perceptions of state agents in relation to the sexual orientation of the alleged victim, the case was not accorded priority, the seriousness of the facts was trivialized, the preliminary investigation was plagued by irregularities, there was not an immediate report of the rape to the Police Station of Casagrande, and the office of the prosecutor obstructed the forensic medical exam, among others. They consider that this violates the duty of non-discrimination and the duty to respect 4