46 presented, the competent institutions – such as the Public Prosecution Service and the judiciary – would 208 have opened the necessary investigations and the persons found guilty would have been punished.” 216. The State indicates that during Gladys Carol Espinoza’s second criminal trial, the National Terrorism Chamber asked the Legal Medicine Institute to conduct psychological and physical 209 evaluations and it concluded, in the conviction handed down on March 1, 2004, that “the forensic analysis concluded that she has multiple scars on the chest and head, and the expert medical examiner in the oral proceedings stated that the origin of those injuries could not be determined, nor could it be 210 established that they were produced by physical mistreatment or torture.” The State contends that in the deed of execution of November 24, 2004, the Supreme Court of Justice stated that “during the oral proceedings, the medical experts have stated that Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles’s injuries are not compatible with torture, and the expert psychological examination concluded that the subject was a 211 person given to manipulation in order to secure advantage.” It added that the justices of the National Chamber and of the Supreme Court: have the authority to order the referral of the relevant documents to the Public Prosecution Service for the corresponding investigation when, during the processing of a case, the possible commission of a criminal act is detected (Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 265). However, the proceedings in the criminal prosecution of Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles established no violation of her right to 212 humane treatment. 217. In turn, the petitioners contend that during the oral proceedings before the National Terrorism Chamber on February 24, 2004, the physicians of the Legal Medicine Institute responsible for the medical examinations of May 18 and April 19, 1993, were called as witnesses. When asked about the causes of Gladys Carol Espinoza’s injuries, those professionals stated that “the injuries described were caused by a hard blunt object.” When a justice of National Terrorism Chamber asked whether it was possible that the accused had injured herself or whether she was attacked by others, the physicians 213 “replied that either possibility was possible.” The petitioners add that the physicians called on as witnesses ratified the reports claim of “indications compatible with a recent unnatural act” and that nevertheless, the National Terrorism Chamber did not order a criminal investigation; instead, it denied the existence of torture. 218. Regarding the State’s contention that no investigations were opened because of an absence of evidence indicating the possible violation of Gladys Carol Espinoza’s physical integrity, the IACHR notes that the petitioners or the victim’s next-of-kin cannot be required to provide evidence for the 214 domestic authorities to initiate the corresponding inquiries. Gathering evidence and ruling on the existence of a publicly actionable offense must take place as part of a criminal investigation led by the 208 Communication from the State, dated October 15, 2010, para. 33, received by the IACHR on October 18 of that year. 209 Annex 20: Medical Examiner’s Certificate No. 009598-V, issued by the Legal Medicine Institute after examining Gladys Carol Espinoza on January 27 and February 9, 2004. Annex 18: Medical Examiner’s Certificate No. 003821-V, issued by the Legal Medicine Institute after examining Gladys Carol Espinoza on January 27 and February 9, 2004. Annex 2: Psychological Examination Report No. 003737-2004-PSC, produced by the Legal Medicine Institute after interviewing Gladys Carol Espinoza, February 9 and 10, 2004. 210 Communication from the State, dated October 15, 2010, para. 17, received by the IACHR on October 18 of that year, citing a whereas paragraph from the judgment of the National Terrorism Chamber of March 1, 2004, case file No. 509-03. 211 Communication from the State, dated October 15, 2010, para. 18, received by the IACHR on October 18 of that year, citing a whereas paragraph from the deed of execution of the Supreme Court of Justice of November 24, 2004, case file No. 12522004. 212 Communication from the State, dated October 15, 2010, paras. 24 and 25, received by the IACHR on October 18 of 213 Petitioners communication of September 14, 2010, received by the IACHR on that same date, p. 24. that year. 214 In its report on Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence, the IACHR underscored the need for the judicial authorities to consider evidence over and above medical records of physical injuries and witness testimony in ruling on cases of violence against women. IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc.68, January 20, 2007, para. 138, available at: www.cidh.oas.org/women/Acceso07/indiceacceso.htm.