169. At the same time, notwithstanding a written statement by Mr. Máximo Guzmán on December 24, 2004, that classmates of Paola had told him that the school doctor, Dr. Raúl David Ortega, had asked or sexual favors from Paola, the Commission notes that the only action taken by the Government Prosecuting Attorney was to take his statement, without initiating any investigation into the allegations of sexual violence. 170. Likewise, as the Commission already established in the present report, at the very least, the school inspector, teacher Blanca Cuenca, teacher Gladys Gatay, and the School Principal had knowledge of the Vice Principal's improper relationship with Paola and of previous cases of sexual harassment at the school. Nevertheless, no investigation was carried out into the administrative responsibility they might bear for not having done anything about it. 171. The Commission notes that during the criminal proceedings, Mrs. Petita requested that several pupils at the school be invited to testify, but that request was denied by the Government Prosecuting Attorney on the basis of writs presented by those students' representatives stating that they had nothing to testify because they had not been classmates of Paola's The Commission, however, considers that those statements were essential to clarify what happened to Paola and the context of misuse of authority and harassment among staff. That could also have been verified from the findings of the anonymous surveys conducted of numerous pupils during the administrative proceedings and from the two reports by the Supervisor of the Provincial Board of Education that Paola's father presented in the criminal proceedings on March 10, 2003, which contained enough information to at least initiate serious inquiries into the context of abuse. Accordingly, it was the State's obligation to take the necessary steps to ensure that the pupils could make their statements without fear of reprisals -- above all when evidence emerged of pressure being exerted by the school authorities - and with due safeguards to take their condition as adolescents into account. 172. The Commission further notes a complete lack of coordination among the authorities familiar with the three cases and that they failed to communicate with one another to use factors that might advance the investigations; despite the fact, noted in the records, that in each of the three proceedings Paola's parents provided information about the other two proceedings. 173. Consistent with the above, the Commission notes that there is no information indicating that any State institution responsible for safeguarding the interests of children intervened in the criminal proceedings, even though Paola's classmates who did make statements at those proceedings were adolescents. As the Court has held in this regard: in order to facilitate access to justice for vulnerable persons, the participation of other State institutions and bodies is essential so that they can assist in the judicial proceedings in order to ensure that the rights of such persons are protected and defended. 196 (…) Moreover, the Court reiterates that , while procedural rights and their corollary guarantees apply to all persons, in the case of children exercise of those rights requires, due to the special conditions of minors, that certain specific measures be adopted for them to effectively enjoy those rights and guarantees.197 The specific types of measures are determined by each State Party and may include direct or additional party representation (representación directa o coadyuvante),198 as the case may be, of the minor in order to reinforce the guarantee of the best interests of the child principle.199 I/A Court H.R. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, par. 241. 197 I/A Court H.R. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, par. 241. Citing: Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, par. 98 198 I/A Court HR. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of Friday, August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, par. 241. Citing mutatis mutandi Case of Atala Riffo and Girls. v. Chile, par. 199. 199 I/A Court HR. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, par. 242. 196