C) Ill-treatment during the initial arrest C.1) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 308. The Commission indicated that, during the search of the building on Las Esmeraldas Street, J. had “had a revolver pointed at her, and been thrown to the ground and dragged three meters by her hair”; “[s]hards of glass from the windows had fallen on her shoulder+ owing to the violence [with] which the agents entered the building”; “[h]er hands were tied and she was blindfolded and warned not to move”; “[s]he was insulted as follows: ‘shut up, you filthy terrorist, who went to Ayacucho eh?’”; “[w]hile she was on the ground, the men touched her, put their hands under her clothes and put their fingers in her vagina, while another man put his foot on her legs. When she protested because of the sexual abuse that she was being subjected to, she was beaten and kicked, and meanwhile they questioned her.” The Commission also indicated that, during the subsequent transfers and prior to her entry into the DINCOTE, Ms. J. “was taken from the building on Las Esmeraldas, blindfolded and with her hands tied, [and i]n these conditions she was put in a car and taken to different places, without being able to see anything, just listening. When she asked where she was being taken, the police threatened her several [times] indicating that they were going “to drive to the beach,’ a phrase that was commonly known in Peru as a threat of torture or assassination.” The Commission concluded that “the acts described by Ms. J. constituted rape and torture,” because “the invasion, even though slight, of the genital organs, is understood as rape.” 309. The representative emphasized that “as soon as she was able and on repeated occasions, Ms. J. informed the domestic authorities that during [her] arrest she had been a victim of illtreatment, insults, beating and threats,” and also that, “in the custody of the DINCOTE, she was driven in a car without knowing where, [when] the agents told her that they were going to the beach, which, at that time, meant that she would be a victim of torture or assassination.” The representative indicated that “[t]he GEIN official introduced his fingers in her trouser, in J.’s vagina when she was subjected to sexual abuse during the arrest (blindfolded, placed on the ground, with another member of GEIN standing on her legs so that she could not move, while the other one introduced his fingers in her genitals), but he did not penetrate the inner part of the vagina with his fingers.” She emphasized that the medical report of April 18, 1992, revealed bruises on J.’s legs and the inside of her thighs, which is consistent with her testimony. However, she clarified that the medical report, even if it had been prepared in accordance with the required legal standards, which it was not, cannot be considered conclusive as to whether or not the rape occurred. She argued that, international law does not require corroboration of the testimony of the victim in cases of sexual abuse. 310. The representative also indicated that the international criminal courts have considered that the actus reus of the violation is the penetration, however slight, of the genitalia by the penis or any other part of the body or an object. She indicated that it is irrelevant that the definition of rape was agreed after the facts of this case, because rape was clearly illegal in Peru in 1992. She also argued that it was necessary to take into account the patterns of violence against women that existed in the context of the armed conflict in Peru committed by State agents and addressed specifically at women, affecting them in a way that was different than men, so that such violence constituted acts of discrimination against women. She also indicated that the failure to investigate the events described by the presumed victim contributed to the chain of tolerance of such acts. Lastly, she indicated that the State had not investigated the facts with due diligence and had made the situation worse by denying them, by the re-traumatization caused by her arrest and detention in Germany at the request of Peru, as well as by public attacks on her dignity and honor by highranking officials. 311. The State indicated that “the force used by the members of the National Police who entered the building where Ms. J. was arrested was necessary and proportionate to the objective sought; 90