86 in cases of alleged acts of violence against women, the criminal investigation should include a gender perspective and be conducted by officials with experience in similar cases and in providing attention to victims of discrimination and gender-based violence. 409 The Court has also referred to the essential characteristics of the medical examinations of the presumed victim and of the statements taken from her in this type of case (infra paras. 249 and 252). 243. Nevertheless, the Court has already established that no investigation whatsoever was conducted before the State was notified of the Report on Admissibility and Merits of the InterAmerican Commission (supra para. 84), and that it was only on April 16, 2012, that the Third Supranational Criminal Prosecutor opened a criminal investigation into the acts perpetrated against Gladys Espinoza following her arrest on April 17, 1993, and until June 24 that year on the premises of the DIVISE and the DINCOTE, as well as for the incident that took place on August 5, 1999, in the Yanamayo Maximum Security Prison, among others (supra para. 85). The Court has verified that the proceedings are currently at the trial stage (supra paras. 99 and 100). Based on the foregoing, the Court will now examine, first, the failure to investigate the facts of this case until 2012, and then analyze the alleged failure to comply with the obligation in the investigation opened in 2012. B.1. The failure to investigate between 1993 and 2012 the events that occurred on the premises of the DIVISE and the DINCOTE in 1993 and the incident that took place in the Yanamayo Prison in 1999 244. The Court will now proceed to evaluate the actions of the State in relation to its duty to investigate the acts of torture and sexual violence perpetrated against Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles during her detention on the premises of the DIVISE and of the DINCOTE: (a) between 1993 and 2004, and (b) following the statements made by Gladys Espinoza in 2004 during the criminal proceedings against her in which she described these acts. The Court will then analyze the actions of Peru in relation to its duty to investigate the torture she underwent in the Yanamayo Prison in 1999. B.1.1. The failure to investigate between 1993 and 2004 the acts of torture and other ill-treatment suffered by Gladys Espinoza in the DIVISE and the DINCOTE 245. In this case, the Court has verified that, on various occasions, the State was advised of the acts of violence perpetrated against Gladys Espinoza on the premises of the DIVISE and the DINCOTE in 1993, namely: (i) on April 26, 1993, in a communication submitted by Teodora Gonzáles to the 14th Special Terrorism Prosecutor; (ii) on April 28, 1993, in briefs sent by APRODEH to the Special Prosecutor of the Ombudsman’s Office and to the Prosecutor General’s Office, stressing that she had been subjected to “unnatural acts” and that “a blunt object (such as a broom handle) had been inserted in the woman’s sexual organ […] (supra para. 75); (iii) on April 28, May 7 and June 5, 1993, in statements made by Gladys Espinoza before the Military Prosecutor describing the torture to which she had been subjected at the time of her arrest and on the premises of the DIVISE and the DINCOTE (supra paras. 77 and 157), and (iv) by the physical examinations performed on April 18, 19 and 21, and May 18, 1993, while she was detained on the premises of the DIVISE and of the DINCOTE, as well as the psychological appraisal of Gladys Espinoza on April 26, 1993, by PNP psychologists (supra paras. 165 and 166). In this regard, the Court has already verified that Gladys Espinoza’s injuries had become increasing severe on each examination, and the last one recorded “signs compatible with a recent unnatural act” (supra para. 167). 409 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 455, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 188.