denigrating and re-victimizing. She maintains that the physician made hostile and aggressive comments toward V.R.P. and her family. She states that he attempted to conduct the examination without informing her or her daughter about the procedure, and that he intended to do so without providing V.R.P. with any sedatives. The petitioner adds that there were many people present during the medical examination, including persons unrelated to the medical procedure, such as a judge and a prosecutor. She explains that this situation was re-victimizing for her daughter, as she felt highly uncomfortable and frightened. 13. Additionally, she maintains that during the reconstruction of the facts, the judge obliged V.R.P. to show where she had been abused, as well as the position in which the accused had placed her, while being photographed. The petitioner states that this was re-victimizing and denigrating. She indicates that she lodged a complaint against the manner in which the reconstruction of the facts was carried out, but that this was never clarified by the Nicaraguan legal system and that none of the officials were held responsible. 14. The petitioner also alleges that the State did not provide V.R.P. with comprehensive medical treatment as a victim of rape, which should have included psychological treatment. She explains that to date V.R.P. is traumatized not only from the rape, but also from the mistreatment she received from the authorities. She maintains that as V.R.P.’s mother, she has suffered intense anguish and helplessness due to the process’ irregularities and the denigrating and discriminatory treatment of her daughter. 15. She indicates that the identity of V.R.P. was not protected during the proceedings, as her testimony was not made in private with the judge. She maintains that, due to so many people having participated in the proceedings, “the entire city knew about the case (…) about everything that happened and the disease.” 16. With respect to the rights of children, the petitioner maintains that during the proceedings, both procedural and substantive aspects, the State did not respect the principle of the best interest of the child established in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 17. Finally, with respect to the principle of equality before the law and non-discrimination, the petitioner expresses that, from the outset of the investigation, multiple officials involved in the process had discriminatory attitudes toward her and her daughter, beginning with the declarations and conduct of forensic physician Andrés Altamirano when he attempted to conduct the medical examination on V.R.P.. B. Position of the State 18. The state denies the allegations made by the petitioner. It maintains that after Mrs. V.P.C. reported the alleged rape committed against V.R.P. it employed various measures in order to clarify the facts, such as gathering witness testimony, medical examinations, visual examinations and the reconstruction of the facts. 19. Nicaragua also states that the presiding judge issued an arrest warrant for V.R.P.’s father, which was carried out expeditiously. It adds that the father of V.R.P. was held in preventive detention for the duration of the proceedings, demonstrating the seriousness with which the State acted in this manner. 20. The State alleges that the proceedings were in accordance with the law. It states that the decision was duly motivated and took into consideration the facts and evidence submitted by the parties. It adds that the petitioner has not submitted evidence to demonstrate the partiality of the judge and the prosecutor that initially took up the case. It maintains that the State is not responsible for the jury’s decision in the first instance, as the jurors “reached the decision based on their personal convictions.” 21. With respect to the alleged irregularities and omissions committed by the prosecutor during the proceedings, the State declares that “ideally another prosecutor would have taken up the case in order to avoid these suspicions, but one must take into account the Public Ministry’s lack of personnel.”