the full cycle of chemotherapy, and in January 2010, her health worsened, and from that point until her death on April 30, 2010, she was admitted to the Hospital Nacional Rosales. 15. It stated that Manuela's relatives were also victims of mistreatment at the hands of the police, as the authorities—taking advantage of their literacy—made the alleged victim's father sign a complaint against his daughter without explaining to him its content. Additionally, the alleged victim's mother was subjected to anal and vaginal searches when she sought to visit her daughter in prison, and her family was intimidated to prevent them from visiting. 16. In terms of the law, the petitioner alleged that the State violated a series of rights protected by the American Convention, the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and the Convention of Belém do Pará. 17. It said the State violated the right to life, the right to personal integrity, and the right to not be subjected to torture by the failure to diagnose and adequately treat her illness between 2006 and 2008 when she was a patient of the Cacaopera Health Clinic and the Hospital Nacional San Francisco Gotera. It also said those rights were violated when she did not receive adequate medical treatment while she was deprived of liberty from March 2008 to February 2009 and spent almost a year suffering severe pain. When she did finally receive medical treatment, it was not complete, and the State did not allow it to be provided under proper conditions, which in the end led to her death. 18. It also stated that the right to humane treatment to the detriment of the alleged victim's relatives—her mother especially—was violated, for the above-indicated reasons. 19. It indicated that the State violated the alleged victim's right to personal liberty, as she was detained arbitrarily without having been informed of the reasons, without having been informed of the charges against her, and without any court order. It added that neither was the legality of her deprivation of liberty corrected within a reasonable period of time, and highlighted the particular situation of vulnerability of the alleged victim, who, being illiterate, needed an explanation in simple and jargon-free language, which she never received. 20. It argued that the State violated the right to a fair trial by failing to inform her of the charges against her, failing to provide an adequate defense, violating the right to present exculpatory evidence, and allowing stereotypes to contaminate the process and affect the independence and impartiality of the court that convicted the alleged victim. It also stated that the right to a fair trial was violated when the State did not conduct an ex officio investigation into the death of the alleged victim. 21. It added that the State also violated the right to a fair trial and judicial protection because at the time of the facts, there was no effective remedy for appealing the guilty verdicts, with only a cassation remedy available, whose requirements are complex and which does not allow for full review of a guilty verdict. B. State 22. The State denied the context alleged by the petitioner and said that there are no patterns of discrimination and gender-based violence in El Salvador that are part of State policies. 23. It stated that the criminal investigation against the alleged victim originated with a report submitted by Hospital San Francisco Gotera stating that the alleged victim had entered the hospital with the appearance of having had an abortion. It stated that based on this, the Office of the Public Prosecutor asked the Cacaopera Justice of the Peace to issue a preventative search warrant of Manuela's home, and the visual inspection consequently was conducted on February 28, 2008. 24. It stated that during the visual inspection, the investigators recovered the body of a newborn, and a forensic doctor immediately conducted the forensic medical examination in situ, then submitted the remains to the Forensic Medical Institute of San Miguel. 3