in his first accusation the alleged victim mentions three assailants, in his complaint brief he indicates that “his rapists” numbered four. 29. The State also alleges that the prosecutorial authorities considered that the alleged victim engaged in physical activities after the supposed attack, and that what is alleged by Mr. Rojas Marín contradicted other elements of evidence in the proceeding. The State also indicates that one of the police agents denounced had been a key witness in the trial for homicide in which the defendant was a brother of the alleged victim, in which he was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison. In addition, the State argues that contrary to what the petitioners indicate, the resolutions issued in the context of the domestic investigation were duly motivated, and that there was no evidence that the acts had occurred. 30. With respect to the abuse of authority, the State argues that Article 205 of the New Code of Criminal Procedure grants powers to the National Police of Peru to make stops to check identity, without the need for an order from a prosecutor or judge. In addition, it reports that it has not been shown that Mr. Rojas Marín was detained until 6 o’clock on the morning, but that he was released, respecting the time period legally provided for and that, in his statements, he had not indicated that he was unaware of the reasons for his detention. On this point, the State indicates that the investigative judge found that based on the evidence collected by the police intervention “it was fully justified and lawful.” Therefore, it was not an illegal and arbitrary detention, as the petitioners have indicated. The State also notes that the petitioners’ argument to the effect that Mr. Rojas Marín was in “supposed incommunicado detention,” whereby neither he or his family was able to present any action to guarantee his release, is not an argument that was made known to the authorities in any of his statements, complaint, or briefs filed during the criminal proceeding. 31. The State reports that on January 22, 2009, the alleged victim filed an appeal before said court, but that it had been declared inadmissible on procedural grounds supposedly for having been filed after the time provided for in the legislation on criminal procedure (three working days after notice of the resolution). Accordingly, the Peruvian State considers that it cannot be attributed international responsibility based on the inadequate or negligent use of the remedies provided for in the domestic order. Therefore, it alleges that this negligence in the use of the remedy translates into the failure by the alleged victim to exhaust the suitable and effective domestic remedy. 32. Moreover, in relation to the request by the alleged victim on May 5, 2008, to expand the investigation into the crime of torture, the State alleges that the Office of the Second Provincial Prosecutor of Ascope had ordered it was not appropriate to expand and continue the investigation into the crime of torture, as it was considered that the special subjective element was not present, which is to say the special intent to obtain information or a confession from the alleged victim or to punish him for some act he committed or that it is presumed he committed. In this regard, it argues that the legal characterization of a given unlawful act is entrusted to the Public Ministry and the alleged victim does not have the authority to replace the characterization of the facts. 33. In addition, the State argues that the alleged victim successfully requested, by means of a complaint appeal (recurso de queja), that the proceedings be forwarded to the Superior Prosecutor. Nonetheless, that prosecutorial office had found the motion unfounded, and therefore affirmed the ruling by the Provincial Prosecutor (Fiscal Provincial). In addition, it reports that for the purpose of the prosecution and eventual punishment of the persons allegedly responsible, the characterization as crime of torture did not have a considerable impact on the judicial decision, especially if the crime of aggravated rape (violación sexual agravada) carries a criminal sanction heavier than that for the crime of torture. 34. The State indicates that the petitioners contradict one another with respect to decisions and procedural moments they cite to argue that they exhausted of domestic remedies. It reports that in their first brief the petitioners consider the prosecutorial resolution finding inadmissible on procedural grounds the complaint appeal that was filed late as the point of reference for arguing exhaustion. Nonetheless, in their second brief, the petitioners indicated that domestic remedies were exhausted with the prosecutorial resolution that found the motion to annul inadmissible on procedural grounds given the legal characterization of the crime as sexual violence and not torture. 6