never shown the said record when she was arrested.” 478 The Court considers that it is unnecessary to rule on whether or not Ms. J. was able to denounce the alleged ill-treatment so that it would appear in the said record, because, even if she had been given the opportunity and did not do so, this does not mean that the ill-treatment she described did not take place. In this regard, it is essential to note that victims often abstain, based on fear, from denouncing acts or torture or illtreatment, especially if they are detained in the same place that these occurred. 479 In addition, the Court reiterates that sexual abuse corresponds to a type of offense that victims frequently abstain from denouncing (supra para. 323). Furthermore, it is important to stress that, at the time the search was presumably conducted, it is possible that the alleged perpetrators of the ill-treatment were present, so that it was not a safe and comfortable location that provided privacy and trust to describe the alleged ill-treatment (supra paras. 325 and 328). 338. The Court also notes that, contrary to the prosecutor’s assertion (supra para. 80), according to J., the representative of the Public Prosecution Service “was not present at the time of the police operation, [but arrived] later” (supra para. 84). The Court notes that, according to the search record of the building on Las Esmeraldas Street, the search commenced at 8.55 p.m. on April 13, 480 During the public hearing, the prosecutor 1992, and ended at 9.15 p.m. on April 14, 2013. stated that this was “an error in the preparation of the record, but did not invalidate [her] presence during the procedure.” She also indicated that “it could be said” that the operation did not last a whole day; however, she “could not be more specific, because [they] were under great tension” and more than 20 years had passed. 481 In this regard, Ms. J. stated that they had not remained in the said building until 9.15 p.m. on April 14, but that, “at midnight, they took [her] out of the building to the car.” 482 Consequently, the exact time at which the search of the building on Las Esmeraldas Street ended is unclear. 339. The Court also notes that, on April 13, 1992, while the operation in the building on Las Esmeraldas Street was possibly underway, other searches were being executed where prosecutor Atto Mendives had been present. In particular, according to the respective records, from 9.20 to 9.45 p.m. the home of Ms. J. was searched, 483 and from 9.45 to 10.50 p.m. the prosecutor was present during the search of four individuals at Bartolomé Herrera No. 667, Lince. 484 These coincidences were taken into account by the “faceless” Higher Court of Justice of Lima that decided to acquit Ms. J. (supra para. 103). This Court notes that there are indications that the prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service was not present during the whole operation, contrary to what she and the State declared. Furthermore, the Court notes that the presence of the prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service in procedures immediately following the arrest of Ms. J. and the search of 478 Preliminary statement of June 10, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 41, folio 3699). 479 Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra, para. 92, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 236. 480 Cf. Record of search of premises and seizure of property from the building on Las Esmeraldas Street (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 28, folios 323 and 330). 481 Cf. Statement made by Magda Victoria Atto Mendives during the public hearing held in this case. 482 Preliminary statement of June 19, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the State’s brief of June 24, 2013, annex 17, folio 4743). 483 Cf. Record of house search and seizure of property from the house on Casimiro Negrón Street of April 13, 1992 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 26, folios 3646 and 3650), and attestation No. 084–DINCOTE of April 25, 1992 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 23, folios 3348 and 3354). 484 The first individual search was conducted from 9.50 to 9.55 p.m.; the second from 9.56 to 10 p.m.; the third from 10.01 to 10.05 p.m., and the fourth from 10.06 to 10.10 p.m. Cf. Record of search of Luis Enrique Jara Castañeda (file of annexes to the State’s brief of August 14, 2013, folios 5531 and 5533); record of search of Oscar Andrés Jara Mostacero (merits report, folios 2504 and 2506); record of search of Tania Santiesteban Luyo (file of annexes to the State’s brief of August 14, 2013, folios 5543 and 5544); record of search of Rafael Gustavo Guevara de la Cruz (merits report, folios 2502 and 2503) and table of searches of individuals (file of annexes to the State’s brief of August 14, 2013, folio 5555). 100