victimization of the patient must be avoided and she must not be present during the reconstruction of the facts occurred.”47 43. On April 10, 2002, the Jinoteca Criminal Court scheduled the hearing at which the jury would determine Mr. Rodríguez’s responsibility.48 According to the petitioner, the Court suspended the hearing scheduled for the morning because a protest was taking place outside the courthouse. 49 The Court was forced to select a new jury for duty that afternoon. 50 However, the hearing was suspended for a second occasion when Mr. Rodríguez’s defense attorney stated that he had health problems. 51 44. On April 12, 2002, the jury was reconvened. 52 The petitioner states that on that day, Mr. Rodríguez’s lawyer requested that two lawyers be added to the defense, which was granted. She asserts that, notwithstanding, the prosecution’s request to add two lawyers was rejected. 53 The petitioner also alleges that before the jury left to deliberate, one of the defense lawyers handed a silver package to the presiding judge, along with a pink paper.54 45. On April 13, 2002, Verdict No. 33 was issued, signed by Judge Reyna Gutiérrez and three members of the jury. That verdict merely stated that Mr. Rodríguez “was innocent of the crime of raping the child.”55 Mrs. V.R.P. reported that the jury deliberated the matter for fifteen minutes. 56. The Commission notes that this verdict provides no grounds on which the decision is based and that no other element in the case file indicates the reasoning whereby the jury reached that conclusion. That same date, the Court ordered Mr. Rodríguez’s release.57 46. The following day, the legal representatives of Mrs. V.P.C. filed for the annulment of that judgment.58 Judge Gutiérrez was asked to recuse herself from continuing to hear the case “in the interests of judicial transparency.” In addition, situations characterized as irregularities in the proceedings were alleged, such as: i) allowing eight people to attend the medical examination that ultimately Mr. Altamirano was unable to perform; ii) allowing Mr. Rodríguez’s defense team to use language that discredited Mrs. V.P.C.; iii) canceling the hearing scheduled for the morning of April 10, 2002, arguing legal reasons only because there was a group of children outside the courthouse demanding justice in the case at hand; and iv) not allowing the attendance of all the parties involved at the dissolution and selection of the jury. 47. On April 25, 2002, the Office of the Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights, that participated as an observer in the process, issued a resolution concluding that the verdict handed down by the Jinoteca jury declaring Mr. Rodríguez innocent is “unjust any way you look at it (…) and violates the child’s human rights regarding the respect for her physical, mental and sexual integrity, protection before the 47 Annex 16. Follow-up report of February 21, 2002. Annex B to the communication received on March 16, 2006. 48 Annex 2. Deed of the Jinoteca Criminal Court, p. 566, criminal case file. 49 Annex 13. Communication from the petitioner, received on April 7, 2003. 50 Annex 2. Deed of the Jinoteca District Criminal Court, p. 569, criminal case file. 51 Annex 2. Document presented by Cecil Tercero, p. 564, criminal case file. 52 Annex 2. Communication of the Jinoteca District Criminal Judge, page 587, criminal case file. 53 Annex 13. Communication from the petitioner received on April 7, 2003. 54 Annex 13. Communication from the petitioner received on April 7, 2003. 55 Annex 2. Verdict No. 33, p. 589, criminal case file. 56 Annex 17. Communication from the State of December 15, 2005. 57 Annex 2. Release order, April 13, 2002, p. 599, criminal case file. 58 Annex 2. Appeal for annulment, p. 600, criminal case file.