the fact that not all were resolved in her favor where the law was not of assistance to her. 31. With regard to the petitioner’s allegation regarding the action of the Judge, the State indicates that the Office of the Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights sent a communication to her on May 14, 2002, recognizing her work in the case. It also indicates that there is no evidence for the petitioner’s allegation that the judge was removed for acts of corruption or her conduct in these proceedings. 32. It also alleges that the petitioner and the child V.R.P. have been afforded, through the different entities involved, the judicial protection enshrined in Article 25 of the American Convention, as well as access to remedies and to a fair trial. With regard to the length of the proceedings, it states that “this is due to multiple motions to vacate, appeals, objections, and applications for reconsideration filed by both parties with the courts (...), as well as the recusal by some judges from considering and adjudicating the case, since they considered that no procedural errors or conflicts of interest were present therein.”28 33. Moreover, the State indicates there was no abusive interference in V.R.P.’s private life, or any other assault by the State on her personal honor or dignity. It also indicates that no discriminatory act occurred that might affect the interests of V.R.P. With regard to the alleged violation of Articles 17 and 19 of the American Convention, it states that: … the State has not interfered in any way in Mrs. V.P.C.’s family unit. Rather, her rights have been respected and they have been afforded protection. The State has only acted as necessary in connection with the crime that was the subject of the proceedings, where her family unit was at stake, all taking into consideration the exercise of the rights of the minor child and the petitioner.29 34. In a communication of February 16, 2005, the State alleges that the Disciplinary Committee of the Supreme Court of Justice studied the complaint filed by the petitioner against the Prosecutor and the forensic physician, but, in accordance with the provisions of Article 72.7 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary, the Supreme Court decided not to admit it, although the petitioner has indicated that she did not obtain a reply to this appeal. Subsequently, on June 29, 2007, regarding the alleged accusations or complaints that V.P.C. alleges to have lodged 28 Note from the State of December 15, 2005, MRE/SREC-DGOI/842/12/05. 29 Note from the State of December 15, 2005, MRE/SREC-DGOI/842/12/05. 11