81. As explained (supra, para. 12), the classification of "statutory rape" in Bolivia describes cases in which an adult has sexual relations with a minor (under 18 years of age) who has already reached the legal age of consent (14 years of age) through seduction or deception. Despite appearing to provide additional protection to this group, what happens in practice is that cases where individuals are accused of sexual crimes against people (usually women) between 14 and 18 years old are classified as "statutory rape" in instead of being classified as "rape", which leads to the imposition of lighter penalties for conduct of equal or greater social reprehensibility than those provided for in the crime of rape. The evidentiary difficulties inherent in the "seduction or deception" standard could, in a prospective judgment, lead to impunity for sexual crimes against this category of victims - similar to what happened in this case. 82. This Court already had the opportunity to evaluate the classification of statutory rape in a State-defendant in the Case of Guzmán Albarracín vs. Ecuador (2020), which dealt with sexual violence against a victim between 14 and 16 years old by the vice principal of her school, which led her to suicide. 161 The Ecuadorian judicial authorities framed the conduct of the accused under the crime of "statutory rape" (appraised based on the element of "seduction", in parallel to the Bolivian classification) and not in the crime of "sexual harassment" (a classification of greater penalty, similar to the crime of "rape" in Bolivia) 162. The Court analyzed the inadequacy of the classification in the following terms: First, because it dismisses a crime based on a judgment of the victim’s alleged conduct, making her responsible under the notion of “seduction.” (…) This view of women – or, in this case, a girl - as “provocative” permits sexual violence and discrimination exercised through harassment, absolving the perpetrator of responsibility for it. Regarding the latter, it should be noted that, although the ruling attributes a crime to the vice principal, it dismisses the crime of sexual harassment. Thus, (…) the decision implicitly validated sexual harassment against a girl, since it did not consider that this conduct includes “grooming” for subsequent abuse, in which the perpetrator takes advantage of a relationship of power (…) Furthermore, in defining the perpetrator’s conduct as “rape,” the Court (…) referred to the requirements of “honesty” and “maidenhood,” which imply an assessment of the victim’s previous conduct. In other words, it amounts to a conceptual judgment of the victim prior to the evaluation of the aggressor’s actions. Thus, the crime is configured in the measure that the affected woman meets certain standards of behavior based on gender preconceptions or biases regarding the conduct supposedly expected of a woman merely because she is a woman. 163 83. The repeal of the "statutory rape" classification also serves to avoid the double application of the penalty for this crime with the penalty for "rape", which would occur if the reform of Article 308 of the Bolivian Penal Code described above were applied. By carrying out the necessary replacement of the traditional core of "rape" with the element of consent, the elements of the "statutory rape" classification (seduction and deception) lose their distinctive characteristic, since they are elements that also invalidate a victim’s consent. Thus, there would be an overlap in the content of both crimes, opening room for arbitrariness due to the lower penalties attributed to the “statutory rape” classification. Cf. Case of Guzmán Albarracín et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2020. Series C No. 405. 162 Ibid., para. 70. 163 Ibid., para. 191-2. 161 28