its observations, as per Article 30(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure then in force. On August 12, 2013, the State requested an extension, which was granted, up until October 10, 2013, in keeping with Article 30(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. On October 10, 2013, the State requested a second extension, which was rejected by the IACHR based on Article 30(3) of its Rules of Procedure, by communication of November 13, 2013. On November 4, 2013, and January 29, 2014, the petitioners asked the IACHR to issue a pronouncement on admissibility. 6. The State submitted its response on March 24, 2014; it was sent to the petitioners on April 15, 2014, requesting their observations within one month. On May 13, 2014, a communication was received from the petitioners in which they requested an extension. On June 26, 2014, the IACHR received the petitioners’ observations, which was transmitted to the State on July 25, 2014, requesting its observations within one month. On September 12, additional observations were received from the State, which were forwarded to the petitioners. III. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS A. The petitioners’ position 7. The petitioners allege that Luis Alberto Rojas Marín is a young gay man, with scant economic resources originally from the province of Ascope, department of La Libertad, who at the time of the facts was 26 years old. 8. They allege that on February 25, 2008, at approximately 12:30 a.m., Luis Alberto Rojas Marín was headed to his home, when he was detained by members of the security force of the local government (known as serenazgo), and by a police agent, because he had a “suspicious attitude.” It is alleged that for the purpose of fully identifying him – he did not have identification papers on him – he was taken to the police station in the district of Casagrande, province of Trujillo, department of La Libertad, where he was deprived of his liberty until his release at 6 o’clock the next morning. 9. They allege that during his detention Luis Alberto Rojas Marín was subjected to physical and verbal aggression by three police agents, who he could fully identify; that he was interrogated in rude manner and insulted with expressions alluding to his sexual orientation (for example, in the words of the petitioners, he was asked “whether he liked the male sexual organ”); it is alleged that he was forcibly stripped and held in that state until his release; his body was groped; and he was said to have been tortured by introducing a rubber police baton in his anus, twice, which caused bleeding lesions. In this respect, the petitioners argue that the insults, groping, and rape (violación sexual) perpetrated against him reflect how violence and discrimination against gay persons entails exacerbated violence. 10. The petitioners argue that the alleged victim went to report the facts to the police station of Casagrande, the very place that is the headquarters for the members of police who attacked him, so he was not well-received and his request was rejected, as the police officers in charge adduced that the chief of police was not in. The petitioners allege that Luis Alberto Rojas Marín “was only able to report the facts” on February 27, 2008, when he filed the complaint with the Police Station of Casagrande. They argue that while the Public Ministry ordered the forensic medical exam be performed, the prosecutor in charge “was delayed in attending to Luis Alberto [Rojas Marín], which meant that he could not have the forensic examination that same day,” but rather on February 29, 2008; at which time he was also given the clothing he’d been wearing the day of the facts, so that the corresponding exams could be performed. 11. They argue that the State breached its duty to investigate the facts, prosecute and punish the persons responsible, in keeping with the standards of due process and the principle of non-discrimination. As regards the investigation into the facts, they argue that irregularities had been committed in the forensic examination of the alleged victim. In particular, they indicate that the deputy prosecutor had entered the doctor’s office to call into question that the injuries were a result of the rape, a situation that was later argued by the Office of the Prosecutor as a basis for questioning Luis Alberto Rojas Marín’s allegation that the injuries were inflicted by the police officers. 2