VII-1 RIGHTS TO HUMANE TREATMENT, TO PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE, TO THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, TO EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW, TO A FAIR TRIAL AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS AND NOT TO DISCRIMINATE, AND ADOPT PROVISIONS IN DOMESTIC LAW150, AND ARTICLES 7(B), 7(C), 7(E) AND 7(F) OF THE CONVENTION OF BELÉM DO PARÁ A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 77. Regarding the duty of special protection and enhanced due diligence in the investigation, the Commission indicated that, in this case, a serious, impartial and effective investigation aimed at determining the truth was not carried out through all available legal means, with the enhanced due diligence required by Articles 7(b) and (f) of the Convention of Belém do Pará and Article 19 of the American Convention. The Commission indicated that this lack of investigation led to the dismissal and remand of the case for a new criminal trial, violating the alleged victim's right to an effective judicial remedy. Furthermore, it noted that during the investigation and prosecutions, the necessary measures were not adopted to avoid Brisa’s revictimization, and the procedures were not conducted with a gender and childhood perspective or in accordance with the duty of strict and enhanced due diligence, and special protection that cases of sexual violence against an “adolescent woman” require. The above is due to the fact that (i) the State did not provide her with immediate medical and psychological assistance; (ii) the Prosecutor “subjected” her to traumatic interviews in a hostile and inappropriate environment, and (iii) Brisa was subjected to an abusive and humiliating forensic examination degrading her privacy, among other alleged acts of violation. Additionally, the Commission noted that, during said examination, there was excessive presence of health personnel, use of force and disrespect for the alleged victim’s requirements and expressions of anguish and pain,151 and that, seven years after the events occurred, she was subjected to a new gynecological examination, “which was absolutely unnecessary.” 78. Regarding the reasonable period of time, the Commission stated that, due to the errors and shortcomings in the investigation and prosecution, there was an excessive delay in the criminal process, since, almost 18 years after the occurrence of the events, there is no final judgment. It explained that such delay is not attributable to the complexity of the matter or to the procedural activity of the interested parties, but to the conduct of the authorities that “caused significant delays in the processing of various appeals, the revocation of two final sentences and the resubmission of the case for new prosecution on two occasions.” Furthermore, “they did not take the necessary safeguards to prevent the suspect from fleeing, even though there was sufficient evidence of said risk in the process, nor have they taken the necessary measures to conclude the proceedings against him.” 79. Regarding the duty to respect rights without discrimination, the Commission indicated that judicial ineffectiveness and inefficiency in cases of violence against women, as happened in the case under examination, constitute in themselves discrimination against women in access to justice and foster an environment of impunity, which facilitates and promotes the repetition of events. 80. The representatives noted that the investigation and prosecution of Brisa’s case lacked a gender perspective and sensitivity to children. Articles 5(1), 5(2), 11(2), 19, 24, 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 150 The Commission stated that circumstances such as these constitute an arbitrary interference in the private life of the alleged victim and, since there was force and absence of consent to continue with the expert examination, it constitutes “serious” institutional violence of a sexual nature. 151 26