and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention, as per Articles 1(1) and 2 of that treaty and in relation to Articles 5, 7, 8, 11, 24, and 25. 24. As regards the exhaustion of domestic remedies, they argue that the decision to consider inadmissible the challenge brought against the decision not to open an investigation for the alleged crime of torture, of October 15, 2008, closed the possibility of investigating the commission of the crime of torture, and therefore exhausted domestic remedies. They also argue that in the event the IACHR considers that domestic remedies were not exhausted, it would apply an exception to the exhaustion requirement based on the ineffectiveness of the criminal proceeding captioned under rape (violación sexual) and abuse of authority when it comes to investigating the facts for the crime of torture. 25. Finally, they allege that in view of the facts that are the subject matter of the claim, Luis Alberto Rojas Marín’s mother, Juana Rosa Tanta Marín, has suffered continuous detriment to her health because of the anguish and depression over the harm inflicted on her son, the impunity related to the case, and the fear of reprisals, thus they ask that the Commission find a violation of the right to humane treatment, enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention, to her detriment. B. The State’s position 26. The State asks the IACHR to find the petition inadmissible, as it considers that the petitioners did not comply with the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, on having filed a late challenge against the judicial act that ordered the dismissal and that in addition they did not state facts that tend to establish a possible violation of the rights alleged. Specifically in relation to the facts, the State alleges that at approximately 1:25 am of February 25, 2008, a pickup truck of the municipal security force (serenazgo) went to the Carretera Industrial-Casa Grande in response to calls from neighbors who had reported the presence of unfamiliar persons in the proximity of the highway. Once there they saw three persons running, and were able to stop only the alleged victim, who put up resistance. It reports that “due to the circumstances in which he was stopped,” his lack of identification, and his alleged inebriated state, the agents took Luis Alberto Rojas Marín to the Police Station of Casa Grande, with the aim of identifying him. The State indicates that the three police agents accused had indicated that none of what Luis Alberto Rojas Marín said “is the truth,” that they didn’t ask the alleged victim any questions about his brother, nor had they committed any acts of sexual violence against him, and that rather, he had adopted an aggressive attitude, proffering offensive expressions against the police. 27. In relation to the allegation of rape and abuse of authority, on April 2, 2008, the Office of the Second Provincial Prosecutor of Ascope had requested the pretrial detention of the three police officers who were allegedly involved. Nonetheless, on October 21, 2008, the same Office of the Prosecutor had presented, before the preparatory investigative judge, a motion to dismiss due to the insufficiency of the information collected to make a well-founded request to prosecute the accused. The alleged victim had opposed that request, but on January 9, 2009 the Judge of Criminal Investigation of Ascope had declared the request of the Public Ministry well-founded, and had ordered the charges dismissed. 28. The State argues that there has been a serious and exhaustive investigation by the Peruvian authorities with respect to sexual violence, with analysis of the evidence produced during the proceeding, including the forensic medical certificate, the expert examinations in forensic biology, and the clothes. The State makes reference to the prosecutorial and judicial analysis of the case on indicating that the alleged victim had not been consistent in his statement of the facts, as there were contradictions. So in his first two statements on February 27 and 28, 2008, and contrary to what was reported by the petitioners, the alleged victims had not denounced that he had been a victim of rape; and that he did not report it until his statement of March 6, 2008. In addition, they report that the local press, based on statements made by the alleged victim right after the facts alleged, did not refer at any time to rape and that the forensic medical exam he underwent occurred three days after the alleged fact, and, therefore, there was “a reasonable doubt that the old anal fissures with signs of recent acts against nature … were caused on the day of the facts by the accused.”1 In addition, it indicates that while 1 Order of dismissal No. 6 of January 9, 2009, granted by the Criminal Investigative Judge. 5