However, as was established, her transfer to the hospital was delayed by about five hours with no clear explanation to justify the delay. 273. Specifically with regard to the care Linda Loaiza López received as a victim of sexual violence and rape, the Commission observes that the forensic medical examinations, the visual inspections made to establish her physical status while she was hospitalized, and the forensic psychiatric evaluation were performed by male officials, with no indication that the victim was provided with an environment of privacy for carrying out these procedures. The petitioners also stated that although she was later assigned a woman clinical psychologist,352 a significant portion of the psychological and psychiatric care received by Linda Loaiza López during her hospitalization was provided by male personnel even though she had been identified as “a person who is fearful of the male figure.” 274. Finally, the Commission highlights the ban on visitors imposed during the initial days of her hospitalization and after being rescued. The Commission finds that the State has not explained how contact with her relatives could have put her in danger. The Commission finds that this situation, which has not been justified by the State with any specific pleadings, was a source of additional and unnecessary suffering, both for her and her family. 3.2.2. On the legal framework applicable to cases of sexual violence and rape 275. The Inter-American Commission has indicated that the codification of sexual crimes as protective of values such as honor, social modesty, and good customs represents a failure of the State to provide due legal protection to the victims of these crimes.353Along these lines, the Inter-American Court has also established that “a guarantee of access to justice for women victims of sexual violence must be the establishment of rules for the assessment of the evidence that avoid stereotyped affirmations, insinuations and allusions.”354 Likewise, the UN system has found that when there is no regulation on collection of evidence that takes into account the specific needs of women victims, they are exposed to factors that could worsen the trauma suffered and the stigma that accompanies sexual violence.355 Elements such as a requirement to prove the victim resisted physically and the analysis of the victim’s prior sexual conduct are factors that leave victims unprotected and constitute discrimination in regard to their right to access to justice 276. In this regard, the European Court has indicated that: (…) while in practice it may sometimes be difficult to prove lack of consent in the absence of ‘direct’ proof of rape, [...] the authorities must nevertheless explore all the facts and decide on the basis of an assessment of all the surrounding circumstances.356 277. The Commission has already described how the provisions of the Criminal Code in force at the time of the facts did not protect aspects such as the liberty or sexual autonomy of persons. Rather, crimes such as rape were considered a violation of legal rights that do not meet the standard, such as “good customs and the good order of families.” These laws likewise contain mentions of discriminatory stereotypes and 352 See, among others: Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Case No. 20.-253. November 5, 2004. Statement of clinical psychologist María Valentina Ramírez Izarra of the Dr. Carlos Arvelo Military Hospital of Caracas, pgs. 184-187. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 353 IACHR, Access to Justice for Women who are Victims of Sexual Violence: Health and Education. OEA/SER.L/V/II. Doc. 65. December 28, 2011, para. 59. 354 Inter-American Court, Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 278. 355 United Nations. Second Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, before the Human Rights Council. A/HRC/7/3. January 15, 2008, para. 62. 356 ECHR. Case of M.C. v. Bulgaria. Judgment of 4 December 2003. Application no. 39272/98, para. 181.