F. The second investigation into the facts 76. On November 20, 2018, the Second Supraprovincial Prosecutor, in compliance with the Inter-American Commission’s recommendations in the Merits Report in this case, “ordered the re-opening of the investigation into those presumably responsible” for the crime of torture established in article 321 of the Criminal Code perpetrated against Ms. Rojas Marín.108 In this decision, the prosecutor ordered 13 investigative procedures.109 Subsequently, on December 4, 2018, the Fifth Superior Prosecutor of La Libertad decided “to declare the order dismissing the case to be declared null and void as well as all actions taken since the order to open an investigation and up until the order to close the preliminary investigation.”110 77. On January 16, 2019, the provincial prosecutor of the Ascope Provincial Corporate Criminal Prosecution Service asked the Ascope judge of preliminary criminal investigations to annul the actions in the proceedings underway against the three police officers for the offenses of rape and abuse of authority against Azul Rojas Marín.111 78. On August 14, 2019, the Ascope Preliminary Investigation Court decided to declare the request for annulment inadmissible, arguing that the case had become res judicata because, according to Peruvian criminal procedural law it was not possible to file a remedy against the decision ordering the dismissal of proceedings, and also that the Commission’s recommendations did not have the same binding force as the decisions of the Court. In this regard, that court indicated that “since neither the Inter-American Court of Human Rights nor the Peruvian State have issued a final ruling, the annulment shall be declared inadmissible.”112 79. The Ascope Provincial Corporate Criminal Prosecution Service filed a remedy of appeal, indicating that the State should make every effort to comply with the Commission’s recommendations and pointing out that the judge had ignored the fact that the Commission had indicated that the State “may not argue that the ruling dismissing the case was based on the principle of ne bis in idem, res judicata or the statute of limitations in order to justify its failure to comply with this recommendation.”113 80. On September 3, 2019, the Ascope Preliminary Investigation Court decided to declare the remedy of appeal inadmissible, considering that it did not meet the admissibility requirements of Peruvian criminal procedural law.114 VII MERITS 81. This case relates to the alleged unlawful, arbitrary and discriminatory deprivation of liberty of Rojas Marín on February 25, 2008, owing to her sexual orientation or gender 108 Cf. Decision of the Deputy Provincial Prosecutor of November 20, 2018 (evidence file, folios 3067 and 3068). Cf. Decision of the Deputy Provincial Prosecutor of November 20, 2018 (evidence file, folio 3067 and 3068), and statement by Ketty Garibay Mascco during the public hearing held in this case. 109 110 Cf. Decision of the Fifth Superior Prosecutor of La Libertad of December 4, 2018 (evidence file, folio 3085). Cf. Official note of January 16, 2019, signed by the Provincial Prosecutor of the Ascope Provincial Corporate Criminal Prosecution Service addressed to the Ascope judge of preliminary criminal investigations (evidence file, folios 3088 to 3094). 111 Cf. Decision No. 8 of the Ascope Preliminary Investigation Court of August 14, 2019, paras. 11, 17, 19, and 21 (evidence file, folios 5426, 5428, 5429 and 5439). 112 Cf. Remedy of appeal filed by the Ascope Provincial Corporate Criminal Prosecution Service of August 20, 2019 (evidence file, folios 5432 to 5440). 113 114 5444). Cf. Decision No. 9 of the Ascope Preliminary Investigation Court of September 3, 2019 (evidence file, folio 22