6. On February 19, 2009, the Commission notified the parties of the admissibility report and made itself available to them for the purpose of reaching a friendly settlement. The petitioner filed her merits brief on April 16, 2009. The State informed the IACHR of its willingness to reach a friendly settlement by means of a communication submitted on April 27, 2009. The State filed its merits brief on September 11, 2009. 7. The Commission continued to receive briefs from the petitioner and the State, which have been duly forwarded to the parties. On September 13, 2010, the petitioner informed the Commission that she was developing a proposal for a friendly settlement to submit to the State. On October 27, 2010, the IACHR held a working meeting with the parties during the 140th Period of Sessions. 8. On October 22, 2013, the petitioner requested that the IACHR release the Merits Report because of the “Nicaraguan State’s resistance to mediation.” The Commission requested that the parties indicate whether they would continue with the friendly settlement by means of a communication on September 5, 2014. The IACHR noted that if it did not receive a response, it would continue with the proceedings on the merits. The Commission received a response from the petitioner on September 9, 2014, who reiterated his request that the Commission pass judgment on the merits. The State submitted a response on March 23, 2015, indicating that it was still willing to reach a friendly settlement, but that the petitioner’s initial proposal was unacceptable as it imposed conditions that were materially impossible to meet. By virtue of the aforementioned, the Commission decided to end the friendly settlement and continue with the proceedings on the merits. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioner 9. The petitioner alleges that the Nicaraguan State is internationally responsible for irregularities and impunity in the criminal proceedings for the crime of rape perpetrated against her daughter, V.R.P. The petitioner states that her daughter was raped by her father, Heberto Rodríguez, on two occasions in the year 2000. She maintains that once she learned of what happened to her daughter, she reported the events in November 2001. She states that in April 2002, the court carrying out the proceeding declared Mr. Rodríguez innocent, and that this decision was confirmed in August 2005. The petitioner claimed that the denial of justice and discrimination suffered by her and by V.R.P. has had devastating effects on their lives. A detailed description of the facts and the proceedings can be found in the chapter on Proven Facts found in this report. 10. With respect to the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, the petitioner alleges that there were numerous irregularities throughout the criminal process. Among them, she noted: i) the lack of due diligence in the handling of the investigation; ii) that no official from the Attorney General’s Office was present at the reconstruction of the facts; iii) that no medical examination was conducted on the child’s father to determine how she contracted a sexually transmitted disease; iv) the irregular composition of the jury, which absolved Mr. Rodríguez in the first instance; and v) that the jury received a suspicious envelope from the defense prior to issuing the decision to absolve in the first instance. 11. The petitioner maintains that following the decision to absolve Mr. Rodríguez in the first instance, she filed multiple appeals against said decision. She indicates that, in spite of this, neither her allegations nor the documentation submitted were taken into account. Furthermore, the petitioner alleges that the process has been unreasonably long, as it has been nearly fifteen years since she filed the petition. She reports that there have been long periods of inactivity and unjustified requests by judges to recuse themselves from the case. The petitioner concludes that there is a situation of impunity that has been aided by the actions and omissions of the different State institutions involved. She maintains that this has been corroborated by reports from the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman. 12. With respect to the rights to personal integrity and private life, the petitioner alleges that the medical examination conducted on her daughter by forensic physician Andrés Altamirano was