82 women, that “took place during the internal armed conflict.” Thus, the State failed to comply with its obligation to prevent, to investigate and to punish violence against women. Peru also failed to comply with this obligation owing to the absence of an investigation into the torture inflicted on Gladys Espinoza on August 5, 1999, while she was confined in the Yanamayo Prison. 233. The representatives agreed that the State had violated Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará owing to the failure to investigate the facts of the case. They added that “[t]he delay in opening the investigations prevented the implementation of essential measures such as the prompt collection and preservation of evidence, the identification of eyewitnesses, or the inspection of the scene of the crime.” 390 Regarding the medical examinations to which Gladys Espinoza was subjected, they indicated that “they were performed in the State’s medical institutions or hospitals, especially those of a military nature, or on the premises of the DINCOTE”; thus, failing to comply with “the principle of independence and impartiality of the investigations in cases of torture.” They also affirmed that these examinations recorded clear signs of physical ill-treatment. In addition, they indicated that the “violations suffered by Gladys Carol were inserted in a context of the systematic and generalized practice of torture and of violence against women during the armed conflict and, therefore, constitute a crime against humanity, the prohibition of which is a norm of jus cogens, and its investigation and punishment is obligatory under international law.” 234. Furthermore, the representatives argued that the different authorities who were aware of the complaints of torture and sexual violence against Gladys Espinoza applied gender stereotypes that were discriminatory and that led them to reject the victim’s allegations and, consequently, not to investigate them. Thus, the representatives indicated that “the absence of an appropriate investigation and the application of gender-based stereotypes during the judicial proceedings [against Gladys Espinoza] reflect egregious discriminatory practices that affected [her right …] to equal protection of the law and to non-discrimination based on gender.” They also affirmed that the conclusions of the National Terrorism Chamber and of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court derived from the psychological appraisal carried out on Gladys Espinoza in 2004 “are a reflection of a deep-rooted discriminatory practice in the judicial institutions,” which has been “recognized by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic itself in Plenary Decision No. 1-2011/CJ-116.” Based on the above, Peru violated Articles 24 and 1(1) of the Convention. 235. With regard to the investigation opened in 2012, the representatives indicated that, “after more than 21 [years], the preliminary proceedings to investigate these facts has not even started,” and “errors have been committed that have violated the victim’s rights.” In this regard, they mentioned that “an examination of sexual integrity [performed on August 20, 2013, during the said proceedings …] was irrelevant and re-victimized Ms. Espinoza Gonzáles,” and that she had not been provided with appropriate medical and psychological care. Also, during the public hearing, the representatives stated that the new proceedings opened in 2012 “represent some progress in the State’s obligation to investigate this case; however, […] they raise serious concerns, [such as the fact that] they did not classify the facts that occurred in 1993 as torture.” 236. In its answering brief, the State indicated that it had “been conducting investigations in the domestic sphere related to the presumed human rights violations denounced by the Commission and the representatives […].” Regarding the hearings that the National Terrorism Chamber and the Supreme Court had held on the presumed acts of torture against Gladys Espinoza, it mentioned that the Commission had contradicted itself, because first “it indicated that the ruling of the National Terrorism Chamber and the Supreme Court was not issued in a 390 Among others, they specified that “[i]n the case of sexual abuse, if the physical examination is performed more than a week after the attack, it is rare to find any physical signs”; however, “the first record of a genital examination of Gladys Carol was the one carried out […] almost a month after the sexual abuse.”