26 Court has stated that statements by the victims must be assessed in the context of the evidence at trial as a whole, “since they […] can provide additional information on the alleged violations and their 107 consequences.” 123. The IACHR notes that Gladys Carol Espinoza’s statements contain mutually consistent narratives that describe deliberate acts of violence by police officers. Although her narratives vary in terms of the sequence of events and the locations where she was held, Dr. Carmen Wurst’s expert assessment notes that during her interviews of the victim, recollections of dates and the sequence of events were not entirely accurate. That is normal among victims of torture and rape because the very intent of such acts is to confuse and disorient the victim. Thus, the fact that she does not exactly remember the details supports her claim to have 108 suffered torture. 124. Thus, in examining the credibility of statements from victims who have suffered such traumatic episodes as rape, the Inter-American Court has ruled that “it is not unusual for narratives of 109 incidents of this kind to contain certain aspects that might be considered, a priori, inconsistencies.” 125. According to the Peruvian State, Gladys Carol Espinoza’s claims regarding the violation of her physical integrity are an attempt to avoid her responsibility for the crime of terrorism, for which she was convicted. On this point, the IACHR notes that its task is not to rule on Ms. Espinoza Gonzales’s guilt or innocence and reiterates that the facts in the case at hand do not include any possible violations of the 110 American Convention arising from the criminal proceedings brought against her. (b) The context behind the victim’s narrative 126. The facts that Ms. Espinoza Gonzales narrates are typical of the widespread torture and sexual violence used in police interrogations during Peru’s internal armed conflict. The IACHR notes that several of the episodes she describes agree with the modus operandi used by the police at the time, including the victim’s violent arrest and blindfolding, her transfer to a detention center, and the fact that some of her assailants had been drinking. Similarly, the physical attacks described by Gladys Carol Espinoza agree with the methods used at DINCOTE facilities and other police detention centers: physical exhaustion, blindfolding, insults and threats against detainees and their loved ones or associates, blows to sensitive parts of the body, stretching, and plunging into tanks of noxious liquid. 127. Several elements that Ms. Espinoza Gonzales describes are in line with the pattern of sexual violence followed during police interrogations at the time of counterinsurgency effort, particularly at facilities belonging to the DINCOTE in Lima: insults, groping, stripping, and insertion of objects into the vagina and anus. As with the victim in the case at hand, other witnesses who gave testimony to the CVR stated they were sexually abused by the medical examiners who examined them after they had been tortured and raped by DINCOTE agents. 128. In addition to the general context of torture and sexual violence during interrogations of people suspected of belonging to insurgent groups, the IACHR notes that Gladys Carol Espinoza was 107 I/A Court H. R., Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 31, 2010, Series C No. 216, para. 52, citing: Loayza Tamayo Case, Judgment of September 17, 1997, Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of May 25, 2010, Series C No. 212, para. 56; and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of May 26, 2010, Series C No. 213, para. 65. 108 Annex 10: Audio of the hearing on Case 11.157, held on October 23, 2008, during the IACHR’s 133rd regular session; address by expert Carmen Wurst, at 10’23’’ to 10’55’’ in the audio recording. 109 I/A Court H. R., Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 31, 2010, Series C No. 216, para. 91; and Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 30, 2010, Series C No. 215, para. 104. 110 See paragraph 56 above.