98 of Peru, because it founded its judgment on a gender stereotype relating to the unreliability of the statements of women suspected of having committed an offense. 280. In this regard, the Court reiterates that judicial ineffectiveness in individual cases of violence against women encourages a climate of impunity that facilitates and promotes the repetition of the acts of violence in general, and sends a message that violence against women may be condoned and accepted, which fosters its perpetuation and social acceptance of the phenomenon, the feeling and sensation of insecurity for women, and their persistent mistrust in the system for the administration of justice. 463 This ineffectiveness or indifference represents, in itself, discrimination against women in access to justice. Accordingly, when there are indications or concrete suspicions of gender-based violence, the authorities’ failure to investigate the possible discriminatory reasons for the act of violence against a woman may, of itself, constitute a form of gender-based discrimination. 464 281. In this regard, expert witness Rebecca Cook indicated that “[a] culture of impunity […] perpetuates the idea that, by default, women considered suspects are worth less than men […]. The inadequate response of States and judges to gender-based violence suffered by women when they are in police custody or in prison reflects and perpetuates the perception that this type of violence against women is not a serious crime. In sum, violence against women who are considered suspects is [hidden] and under-penalized, allowing it to continue with impunity.” 465 She also indicated that “[t]he implementation of a gender perspective [in access to justice mechanisms] requires a guarantee that the gender stereotypes held by agents or officials will not prevent or distort effective investigations or the prosecution and/or appropriate punishment of violence against women.” 466 282. In the instant case, Félix Reátegui, principal adviser to the President of the CVR and operational coordinator of the of the Final Report Unit, indicated in relation to the number of cases of sexual violence recorded that, “contrary to other violations, there is a marked tendency for sexual violence to be reported much less frequently than it really occurs for different reasons: due to the limited importance given to it; because in a context of continuous violence against women, it tends to be seen as something normal or as a minor violation; owing to shame and the fear of stigmatization and because, traditionally, the State authorities have shown scant respect for women who report that they have suffered sexual violence.” 467 In this regard, expert witness Julissa Mantilla indicated during the public hearing before the Court, without the State contesting this, that of the 538 cases of rape recorded by the CVR, 527 were committed against women and, up until 2012, of the 538 cases of rape found by the CVR, “only 16 cases were being investigated. Of those, 13 were at the stage of preliminary investigation by the Public Prosecution Service and three were before courts.” 468 In this regard, the Court has already indicated in this Judgment that the Report of the CVR is an important reference point for the facts of this case (supra para. 50). The foregoing allows this Court to conclude that Peru rendered invisible the egregious pattern of sexual violence of which women detained due to their presumed participation in crimes of terrorism and treason were victims, which represented an obstacle to the judicialization of these facts, promoting their impunity to date, and constituted gender-based discrimination in access to justice. B.1.3. The failure to investigate the 1999 incident in the Yanamayo Prison 463 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, paras. 388 and 400, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 208. 464 Cf. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 208. 465 Affidavit made by expert witness Rebecca Cook on March 27, 2014 (merits file, folios 1137 and 1138). 466 Affidavit made by expert witness Rebecca Cook on March 27, 2014 (merits file, folio 1138). 467 Affidavit made by Félix Reátegui on March 27, 2014 (merits file, folio 922). 468 Expert opinion provided by Julissa Mantilla during the public hearing held on April 4, 2014.