21. The representatives pointed out that “a careful reading of the Commission’s decision on admissibility reveals that it did not fail to consider the objection filed by the State or to include reasoned arguments on the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies and on the possible application of exceptions to this rule.” They indicated that the remedy of appeal referred to by the State was neither adequate nor effective in proceedings for rape and abuse of power because “it would not have protected [the presumed victim] in relation to the legal situation that was violated.” They stressed that “in Peru, there is no due process of law that guarantees access to effective remedies in cases such as that of Azul because the criminal definition of torture is inadequate and due to deficiencies in due process in the context of structural discrimination against the LGBTI community.” A.2 Considerations of the Court 22. The Court notes that there is no dispute that the petition in this case was lodged before the Commission on April 15, 2009, asserting that the domestic remedies had been exhausted and providing the relevant information. On June 5, 2013, the petition was forwarded to the State which sent its answering brief on March 24, 2014, in which it duly filed the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies for the reasons indicated. 15 Therefore, bearing in mind that is not the task of either the Court or the Commission to identify ex officio which domestic remedies remain pending,16 it is necessary to analyze whether the presumed victim exhausted the domestic remedies or whether one of the exceptions stipulated in Article 46 of the American Convention was applicable and, as appropriate, whether the State specified the remedies that remained to be exhausted and whether it proved that these were available and were adequate, suitable and effective. 17 23. In this case, following the complaint filed by the presumed victim, an investigation into rape and abuse of authority was opened. On May 5, 2008, the presumed victim requested that the investigation be expanded to include torture, and this was rejected by the prosecution on June 16, 2008, indicating that there had not been criminal intent or evidence that the act had been committed for one of the purposes described in article 321 of the Criminal Code, which describes the elements that constitute torture.18 The presumed victim appealed this decision, arguing that the presumed torture had been committed to punish her for her sexual orientation.19 This appeal was declared without grounds by the prosecution on August 28, The initial petition was forwarded to the State on June 5, 2013, granting it two months to presents its observations. The State asked for an extension on October 10, 2013, which the Commission denied. The State presented its observations on March 24, 2014. In this brief, the State indicated that the decision dismissing the case “could have been contested by the petitioner,” by the remedy of appeal. However, this remedy was filed belatedly, and was therefore declared inadmissible. Cf. Communication of the Commission addressed to the State of June 5, 2013 (evidence file, folio 887); the State’s request for an extension of October 10, 2013 (evidence file, folio 878); Communication of the Commission addressed to the State of October 18, 2018 (evidence file, folio 887), and the State’s report of March 24, 2014 (evidence file, folios 840 and 847). 15 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 23, and Case of López et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2019. Series C No. 396, para. 22. 16 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, paras. 88 and 91, and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 26. 17 Cf. Request of Azul Rojas Marín filed before the Preliminary Investigation Judge of Ascope and Paiján on May 5, 2008 (evidence file, folios 2871 to 2873), and Public Prosecution Service. Second Provincial Corporate Criminal Prosecution Service of Ascope. Decision not to allow the expansion of the preliminary investigation of June 16, 2008 (evidence file, folios 2875 to 2878). 18 Cf. Request of Azul Rojas Marín filed before the Second Provincial Corporate Criminal Prosecution Service of Ascope, of August 1 2008 (evidence file, folios 2880 to 2894). 19 8