88 deficiencies during the criminal proceedings, and the fact that the violations of her human rights, including her reproductive rights, went unpunished, constituted a form of discrimination in the exercise of her rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection.” 283. The representative indicated that the elements described in the Inter-American Commission’s report on “Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas,” which “reflect […] open gender-based discrimination against women, characterized the investigations and the criminal proceedings against those who wronged I.V., and resulted in promoting total impunity.” She argued that “[t]he violations of [Articles] 8 and 25 of the American Convention established by the Commission in Merits Report 72/14 are ‘the result’ of the perverse criminal proceedings by which I.V. tried to obtain justice, but ‘the reason’ for that result […] was […] the gender-based discrimination against her and her modest financial situation.” She noted that “neither at the domestic level, nor before the [Commission], had the State contested the fact that the judicial guarantees of a reasonable time and the celerity that judicial proceedings should respect had been violated to the detriment of I.V.” In this regard, she argued that the mere fact that the criminal proceedings had been archived in the domestic sphere because it had lasted more than the three years established by the code of criminal procedure, and that responsibility for this extinction of the criminal action and termination of the proceedings had been attributed by the Judiciary itself to the organs of the Bolivian criminal justice system, “exempts the victim and her representatives from having to provide further evidence to prove a fact that has been amply proved (and confessed).” She indicated that “[t]he indifference towards I.V.‘s case is reflected perfectly in the two judicial decisions mentioned previously (Ruling No. 13/06 of the Fourth Criminal Trial Court and Ruling No. 514/06 of the First Criminal Chamber of the La Paz Superior Court of Justice), which refer to the ‘lack of action’ of the agents of justice who failed to give priority to the case for ‘trivial reasons,’ that were ‘deficient’ and that ‘played around with the law.” She added that “[a]nother inconceivable fact” was that, given that the offense of forced sterilization had not been criminalized at the time, the criminal charges were filed for the offense of “severe injuries”; however, in the second criminal trial, the Copacabana Trial Court convicted the physician of the offense of culpable injury, sentencing him to a fine, rather than to imprisonment, which in the representative’s opinion revealed “I.V., discredited victim, woman without credibility, and offense reduced to the very minimum.�� 284. She indicated that, in addition to the gender-based discrimination, “the agents of justice who took part in I.V.’s proceedings were deficient, ineffective and played around with the law, because they considered the victim to be woman with few financial resources and, therefore, doubly vulnerable, doubly discriminable, and doubly victim.” Accordingly, she concluded that the relationship between the provisions of the American Convention violated in this case and Article 1(1) of this instrument should necessarily take into account the reasons that led the different State agents to violate each of the rights that were infringed in the case of I.V. On this basis, she asked that the Court, in its judgment, for each article of the Convention that Bolivia had violated, note its connection to Article 1(1) of the American Convention comprehensively; in other words, also stressing the discriminatory nature of each violation, discrimination based on sex, gender, economic status, national origin and refugee status (as “any other social condition”). 285. The State indicated, in its final arguments, that there was no evidence of any discriminatory intention on the part of the State. In this regard, it asserted that both the judicial and the administrative proceedings had agreed on the physician’s absence of malice. Therefore, Bolivia had complied fully with its obligations related to the principle and right of non-discrimination. A.4 Arguments on the obligation to ensure that the competent authority established by the laws of the State will determine the rights of everyone who files a remedy 286. The representative submitted additional arguments concerning the violation of Article 25(2)(a) of the Convention. In this regard, she asked that “the Court declare this […] additional