trained personnel and to diligently handle the evidence, taking sufficient samples, conducting studies to determine the likely perpetrator of the act, securing other evidence such as the victim’s clothing, immediately investigating the scene of the crime, and ensuring the proper chain of custody. 232 125. The IACHR observes that the results of the medical examinations performed on the victim were added to the case file several months after the fact, despite repeated requests by the authorities. According to the information from petitioner that was not disputed by the State, the medical examinations were not completely incorporated into the case file, “as several of the results were either lost or had disappeared.” The petitioner contended that “There is no information to establish whether the appropriate steps were taken to determine and extract possible traces of semen, nor is it known what happened to the clothing that Jineth was wearing at the time of the rape, or whether any steps were taken to identify evidence that could facilitate the identification of the perpetrators.” The Commission finds that there is indeed no indication in the court file that the investigating authorities had gathered such evidence or taken steps to obtain it. 126. The IACHR acknowledges that from the beginning of the investigation, the State took steps to investigate the relationship between the crime and Jineth Bedoya’s journalistic work. However, it also notes that at the beginning of the investigation, the 6th Special Prosecutor for Human Rights and IHL looked into an alleged love affair between Jineth Bedoya and a member of the guerrilla as a way of discrediting or calling into question the origin of the risk, revealing sexist prejudices and discriminatory gender stereotypes against women. The case file shows that after alias “Popeye” claimed that the journalist was the lover of a guerrilla in the National Model Prison, the Prosecutor’s Office ordered an interview “to determine the connection between [the guerrilla] and the journalist,” as well as to inspect the visitor log to find out who had visited him. Although this theory was not supported by evidence and was ultimately disproved, it is clear that the authorities were influenced by gender stereotypes that discriminate against women in the course of this investigation, which could affect their ability to investigate the connection between the crimes committed against women and the practice of their profession. 127. The IACHR stresses that discriminatory sociocultural patterns also have an impact on the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of cases of violence against women. In particular, the IACHR has explained that, because of prevailing gender stereotypes, justice authorities tend not to treat cases of violence as a priority and fail to examine evidence that is crucial to the investigation and punishment of the perpetrators. In addition, they give little credibility to the victim’s assertions; they discredit her; they blame her for what happened “because of her manner of dress, her occupation, her sexual conduct, relationship or kinship to the assailant,” 233 and provide the victim with inadequate services when she attempts to cooperate in the investigation of the facts. 234 In this regard, the Inter-American Court has made clear that “the opening of lines of investigation into the prior social or sexual behavior of victims in cases of gender violence is nothing more than the manifestation of policies or attitudes that are based on gender stereotypes” 235 about the socially acceptable roles and behaviors of women in their interpersonal relationships. This is particularly relevant in the case of women journalists, where there is a persistent perception that journalism is not an appropriate profession for women and the threats and risks they experience are trivialized. 128. In addition, the court file shows that there was evidence, from the beginning of the investigation, of the possible participation of State agents as perpetrators or accessories to the events of May 25, 2000. However, according to the information available to the IACHR up to the date of issue of this report, this was not seriously investigated by the Prosecutor’s Office, which failed to take effective investigative action to exhaust this theory. In this regard, it should be reiterated that the State has a special obligation to investigate with due diligence those crimes in which its agents may be involved, whether by direct action, tolerance, or I/A Court H.R. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C, No. 215. Para. 194. 233 IACHR, Access to justice for women victims of violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 68. January 20, 2007, para. 155. 234 IACHR, Access to justice for women victims of violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 68. January 20, 2007, para. 8. 235 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gutiérrez Hernández et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2017. Series C, No. 339. Para. 147. I/A Court H.R. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Para. 209. 232 32