94 267. According to the representatives, during the proceedings instituted against Gladys Espinoza in 2004, the National Terrorism Chamber and the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice which heard the case applied gender-stereotyping when assessing her statements that she had been subjected to torture and other ill-treatment in the DIVISE and the DINCOTE, discrediting them and, consequently, failing to order an investigation into these facts. 268. In this regard, the Court considers that gender-stereotyping refers to a preconception of the attributes or characteristics, or of the respective roles that are or should be played by men and women. 449 Thus, the Court has identified gender stereotypes that are incompatible with international human rights law, and that States should take measures to eradicate. 450 269. Taking this into account, in order to determine whether the National Terrorism Chamber and the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice failed to order an investigation into the acts of torture denounced by Gladys Espinoza based on gender stereotyping, the Court will examine the following documents, which are part of the case file of the proceedings instituted against her: (i) Forensic report No. 003821-V, issued by the Institute of Forensic Medicine (IML) following the evaluation of Ms. Espinoza on January 27 and February 9, 2004; (ii) Psychological appraisal report No. 003737-2004-PSC, prepared by the IML after interviewing Ms. Espinoza on February 9 and 10, 2004; (iii) the record of the public hearing held on February 26, 2004, in the criminal proceedings against Gladys Espinoza; (iv) the judgment of the National Terrorism Chamber of March 1, 2004, and (v) the ruling of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of November 24, 2004. The Court will also examine Plenary Decision No. 1-2011/CJ-116 of the Supreme Court of Justice of December 6, 2011, mentioned by the representatives in their arguments. 270. First, Forensic report No. 003821-V issued by the IML following the evaluations made of Gladys Espinoza on January 27 and February 9, 2004, reveals that the forensic doctors who evaluated Gladys Espinoza determined that her conduct during her statements was a “dramatization of the events” and that she “has a histrionic personality disorder, which does not prevent her from being in contact with the reality except when she disassociates herself from it.” The report also concludes that Gladys Espinoza suffered from “dissociative disorder” and “histrionic personality disorder.” 451 Similarly, Psychological appraisal report No. 003737-2004PSC, prepared by the IML after interviewing Gladys Espinoza on February 9 and 10, 2004, indicates that “[t]he individual examined is a person with a low tolerance of frustration […]; she tends to exaggerate her emotions […] when it suits her interests; she tries to be convincing when she speaks, she is careful about the image she presents, she is evasive, she does not commit herself, she finds it difficult to admit she is wrong, she is manipulative in order to obtain secondary gains […] and to seek support.” 452 271. Furthermore, during the public hearing held on February 26, 2004, before the National Terrorism Chamber, the psychologists who prepared Psychological appraisal report No. 0037372004-PSC mentioned in the preceding paragraph gave oral testimony. When asked how they would define a person with histrionic and dissociative characteristics, they stated that “such individuals are characterized by being immature and unsure of themselves; they change the object of their affections in order to call attention to themselves; in the case of the dissocial 449 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 401. 450 Cf. Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257, para. 302. 451 Forensic report No. 003821-V prepared by experts of the Institute of Forensic Medicine, dated January 22, 2004 (evidence file, folios 1557 and 1563). 452 Psychological appraisal report No. 003737-2004-PSC of the Institute of Forensic Medicine (evidence file, folios 1453 to 1455).