were not made in a timely fashion, as they began one year after the appearance of symptoms related to the illness of which she died. 145. The Commission finds that an initial diagnosis and timely and adequate medical care, absent the above-indicated omissions, would have had a high probability of prolonging Manuela's life. For this reason, it concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of articles 4(1) and 26 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Manuela. Additionally, the Commission finds that the State violated the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection established in articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Manuela's family, as a consequence of the total failure to investigate and solve her death while in custody and its relationship to the omissions indicated in this section. D. Duty to justify,149 presumption of innocence,150 and the principle of equal protection and nondiscrimination151 with regard to gender stereotypes 146. The Commission recalls that the duty to justify is “the exteriorization of the reasoned justification that allows a conclusion to be reached.”152 As the Court has stated, “The duty to state grounds is a guarantee linked to the proper administration of justice,153 protecting the right of citizens to be tried for the reasons provided by Law, and giving credibility to the legal decisions adopted in the framework of a democratic society.”154 147. The Inter-American Court has indicated that in order to guarantee the presumption of innocence, principally in a guilty verdict, the duty to provide justification must include the following: (i) describe the sufficiency of the proof of the charge to confirm the hypothesis behind the charges; (ii) the observance of the rules of logical and reasonable evaluation in the assessment of the evidence, including the evidence that could raise doubts regarding criminal responsibility; and the final judgment deriving from that evaluation; (iii) where applicable, it should reflect the reasons why it was possible to obtain a conviction on the charge and establish criminal responsibility, as well as assess the evidence to dismiss any hypothesis of innocence, and only then confirming or refuting the hypothesis of the accusation; (iv) it should provide clear, complete, and logical justification as well as provide a description of the content of the evidence, weigh that evidence, and indicate why it was or was not trustworthy and suitable for proving criminal responsibility, thereby discharging the presumption of innocence.155 148. The Inter-American Court has stated that the notion of equality springs directly from the oneness of the human family and is linked to the essential dignity of the individual, and that principle cannot be reconciled with the notion that a given group has the right to privileged treatment because of its perceived superiority; it is equally irreconcilable with that notion to characterize a group as inferior and treat it with hostility or otherwise subject it to discrimination in the enjoyment of rights which are accorded to others not so classified. The Court’s caselaw has indicated that at the current moment of the development of international law, the fundamental principle of equal protection and nondiscrimination has taken on the status of ius cogens. Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes that “Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” 150 Article 8(2) of the Convention establishes that “Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law.” 151 Article 24 of the American Convention establishes that “All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law.” For its part, Article 7 of the Convention of Belem do Pará establishes that “The States Parties condemn all forms of violence against women and agree to pursue, by all appropriate means and without delay, policies to prevent, punish and eradicate such violence and undertake to: (...) b. apply due diligence to prevent, investigate and impose penalties for violence against women.” 152 Inter-American Court, Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment dated August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, párr.77. 149 Inter-American Court. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment dated August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182. Para. 77. 155 Inter-American Court. Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 15, 2017. Series C No. 331, párrs.147-149. 154 28