care or consideration despite Brisa crying throughout the procedure. During the course of the investigations, the girl had to describe what happened to her repeatedly to a prosecutor, who did not take the necessary measures for the interviews to be conducted with the required privacy and without interruption, and the prosecutor frequently tried to blame her for provoking the sexual assault, pressured her to stay quiet and retract her accusation, and threatened to imprison her if it turned out she was lying. The petitioner also alleges she was subjected to multiple psychological evaluations and trials during which she felt like she was the one on trial, not her attacker. 6. It also states that the judicial authorities did not take the necessary measures to hold the attacker in provisional detention, putting at risk the personal integrity of the alleged victim, who was threatened and persecuted, to the point that there were two arson attacks on her house. It adds that after long and multiple criminal processes with no result, the accused fled to Colombia, from where he continues to threaten the alleged victim through phone calls. Likewise, it alleges an irrational and unjustified delay by the justice system and an ineffective and chaotic legal proceeding, in the framework of which the attacker still has not been criminally convicted. After two full trials were annulled, the third has not been able to take place because the accused took advantage of the repeated overturning of the judgments to flee to Colombia. It states that the Bolivian government has done little to recapture the attacker after he fled the country; the Court and the police have taken no measures to ensure that the third trial moves forward. 7. Lastly, it states that Brisa’s story is not an isolated case, but rather a part of the context of sexual violence suffered by women and girls in Bolivia, a country with the highest rates of sexual violence in Latin America and in which 70% of women have been victims of sexual violence, with a third of all girls suffering some form of sexual violence before turning 18. It alleges that the revictimization by the Bolivian judicial system, to which Brisa was a victim, is also not an isolated incident, as this is how victims of sexual violence in Bolivia are commonly treated. Very few reports of sexual violence move forward: 77% of the cases reported are lost or abandoned between the filing of a report with the Family Protection Brigade and its registration before the judiciary; only 11.04% of those cases receive a response from the courts, the vast majority through family courts; only a tiny percentage, 0.04%, are criminally prosecuted. 8. The petitioner also argues that Brisa's case made considerable progress only because of private efforts and pressure that Brisa's parents brought to bear on the authorities, and that otherwise, the case would have been dropped at an early stage. Additionally, the accused acted within an environment of impunity that the Bolivian justice system has created for those guilty of sexual violence against teens. Although it should be noted that a series of laws have been passed in Bolivia to protect women, girls, and adolescents from violence—including the Code on Children and Adolescents (Law 548) and Law 348 on the protection of women, which mark an important development in Bolivia's efforts to eradicate sexual violence against children and women—the country still lacks the capacity to guarantee that protection. It also states that in order to protect the best interest of children, the estupro law—which establishes less penalties for abusers who violate children between the ages of 14 and 18—must be repealed, adding that "the Bolivian authorities assume that adolescent victims consent to their rapes, giving the rapists a way of avoiding appropriate punishment." 9. Therefore, the petitioner alleges that Bolivia is responsible for violating the girl’s right to special protection, the right to not suffer sexual and gender-based violence, the right to dignity, the right to freedom from cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, the right to equal protection under the law, and the right to judicial protection from the State, all set forth in articles 5(1), 5(2), 8, 11, 19, 24, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Convention" or "the American Convention”); articles 7 and 9 of the Convention of Belém do Pará; and other international instruments. It also argues that pursuant to articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention, a State Party that tolerates the violation of rights protected under the Convention is responsible for the actions of the citizens who violate those rights. It notes that Bolivia has a long history of accepting sexual and gender-based violence against teen girls and not preventing it or punishing those responsible, thus permitting them to continue victimizing girls with impunity. Therefore, the petitioner asked the Commission to intervene to remedy Bolivia's acts and omissions, as the State did not provide effective internal remedies in keeping with its international obligations. 2