22. With respect to the length of the proceedings, the State maintains that it was of a reasonable time. It explains that the proceedings were carried out within the framework of the Criminal Code of Procedure that was in force at that time, which was “excessively formal, rigorous, and not public.” It indicates that “the administration of justice was much slower, such that the Court’s delay in issuing its decision is, in principle, attributable to the system itself.” 23. It adds that after the decision to absolve in the first instance, the case was heard “on countless occasions due to implications, recusals and nullities alleged by the parties.” The State informs that the legal system has since been modernized, which has streamlined processes. 24. The State alleges that there was no violation of the right of V.R.P. to personal integrity by the authorities. As such, there was no type of mistreatment during the medical examinations. It informs that the examinations were conducted in accordance with domestic standards. With respect to the alleged lack of comprehensive medical attention for V.R.P. as a child victim of rape, the State affirms that “they are correct in that sense (…) because we are a poor country that must prioritize primary needs in our distribution of resources, which results in a regrettable lack of resources.” 25. The State claims that there was no violation of Article 11 of the American Convention, and that, as such, the State did not abusively interfere on the private life of Mrs. V.P.C. or her family. It states that the complaints filed against Mrs. V.P.C. cannot be attributable to the State, as every person has the “right to exercise legal action.” 26. Finally, it maintains that it did not violate the principle of equality before the law, as no discriminatory action occurred that could have affected the interests of V.R.P. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Proven facts 1. On Mrs. V.P.C. and her daughter V.R.P. 27. At the time of the facts, Mrs. V.P.C. was married to Heberto Rodríguez Arauz and they had four children: H.R.P, B.R.P., N.R.P., and V.R.P., who was born on April 15, 1992. 2 According to a report from the Ministry of Family, during their marriage, the relationship between V.R.P. and Mr. Rodríguez was unstable, as “he had an extramarital relationship and suffered from alcoholism.”3 On January 31, 2002, the Jinoteca District Civil Court issued a sentence ending the marriage between Mrs. V.P.C. and Mr. Rodríguez 4 as a result of a divorce suit filed by V.P.C. in November 2001.5 2. On the events that occurred in the year 2000 28. According to different reports, V.R.P. stated that during the year 2000 her father took her to a place called Las Flores on two occasions. She indicated that her father gave her coffee, and she felt dizzy and 2 Annex 1. Ministry of Family Report, Jinoteca Delegation, July 11, 2002. Annex I to the communication received March 16, 2005. Birth certificate, page 10, criminal case file. 3 Annex 1. Ministry of Family Report, Jinoteca Delegation, July 11, 2002. Annex I to the communication received March 16, 4 Annex 3. Jury Verdict, Jinoteca District Civil Court, January 31, 2002. Annex to petitioner’s communication received on August 5 Annex 3. Jury Verdict, Jinoteca District Civil Court, January 31, 2002. Annex to petitioner’s communication received on August 2005. 27, 2007. 27, 2007.