issued for the arrest of H.R.A. at his home, a defense attorney was appointed for him, and his statement was taken. 26. It also states that the Jinotega Departmental Prosecutor appeared at the trial and requested during the preliminary investigation stage the relevant evidence to demonstrate the criminal liability of the accused. To that end, the State alleges that the medical examination of the child was conducted at the Institute of Forensic Medicine, a visual examination was conducted, the facts reconstructed in two stages, in the presence of the accused, and secondly, in the presence of the child, the inspection was illustrated with photo tableau taken at the site of the facts, the medical documents were annexed, and a forensic medical examination was made of the accused to determine vestiges of the presence of Human Papilloma Virus. 27. The State indicates that it would have been best if another prosecutor had taken the case owing to personal problems with the petitioner and to avoid the suspicions that have arisen. It indicates that “account must be taken of the shortage of staff in the Attorney General’s Office, especially in departments far from the capital, such as Jinotega.”22 The State also mentions that the prosecutor had indicated that, despite having had personal difficulties with the mother of the child, this was not going to prevent her from accusing the accused during the proceedings. In that connection, it alleges that at no time did the statements issued by the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Children and Adolescents indicate any misconduct on the part of the prosecutor, still less that the case had been lost through her mishandling of it, although she had not participated in Appellate Court proceedings such as answering charges of lower court error. This, however, “does not indicate partiality or dereliction of duty in the case.”23 28. The State indicates that it acted lawfully, and diligently arranged for most of the evidence in the case, such as the forensic medical examination, taking the necessary steps to avoid negative impact on the child. It alleges that rape, “is established by means of a report by a physician specializing in this area; accordingly, there is no deliberate violation of any human right when the victim is subjected to the expert examination required.”24 In that connection, it states that the earlier examinations that had been contributed to the proceedings were made by private doctors hired by one of the parties, and, therefore, 22 Note from the State of December 15, 2005, MIRE/SREC-DGOI/842/12/05. 23 Note from the State of December 15, 2005, MIRE/SREC-DGOI/842/12/05. 24 Note from the State of February 9, 2005, MRE/DM-DGOI/196/02/05. 9