expression, as well as the alleged rape of which she was a victim while she was detained. The case is also related to the inadequate investigation of the incident and the violation of the right to personal integrity of Azul Rojas Marín’s mother, Juana Rosa Tanta Marín, as a result of the said events. 82. On the basis of the arguments submitted by the parties and the Commission in this case, the Court will develop: (1) general considerations on the right to equality and nondiscrimination, and will examine, (2) the right to personal liberty; (3) the right to personal integrity and privacy; (4) the right to judicial protection and judicial guarantees, and (5) the right to personal integrity of Ms. Rojas Marín’s mother. VII-1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY AND NON-DISCRIMINATION116 A. 115 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 83. The Commission argued that what happened to Azul Rojas Marín “should be understood as violence based on prejudice,” “because the violence was associated with the perception of Azul Rojas Marín as a gay man at that time.” It indicated that the elements of violence based on prejudice could be identified at three key moments: “(i) in the initial detention; (ii) in the acts that took place in the Casa Grande Police Station, and (iii) in the absence of an effective investigation.” With regard to the initial moment, the Commission stressed that “there were no objective facts that justified the detention; rather, this was based on subjective perceptions.” Regarding the second and third moment, the Commission indicated that “the decision to dismiss the case based on the offense of rape and abuse of authority contests the occurrence of rape and its attribution to the police agents, based on two factors […]; (i) supposed inconsistencies in the victim’s statements,” and “(ii) the lack of procedural immediacy in the medical examination performed on Azul,” concluding that “the evidence available in the case file reveals that the delay can be directly attributed to the State.” 84. The representatives indicated that “from the circumstances of the aggressions suffered by Azul, it can be established that the motive for all of them was the negative prejudice against her sexual orientation and non-normative gender expression.” In this regard, they stressed: “(i) the characteristics of the detention; (ii) the characteristics of the physical aggression; (iii) the content of the verbal aggression, and (iv) the lack of investigation and the application of gender stereotyping by several judicial officials.” They concluded, as had the Commission, that Azul was a victim of violence based on prejudice, arguing that “this aggression took place […] in a context encouraged and legitimized because the Peruvian State did not and does not comply with the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions […] that prevent, punish and eradicate violence based on prejudice […].” It argued that the State had violated the rights to the prohibition of discrimination and to equality before the law recognized in Articles 1(1) and 24 of the Convention, respectively. 85. The State argued that the reason for Ms. Rojas Marín’s detention “was not her condition as a LGBTI person, but rather that she was in suspicious circumstances, without identity documents, and with the smell of alcohol on her breath.” Consequently, the State denied the Commission’s allegation that “from the moment Azul Rojas Marín was intercepted by State 115 Article 24 of the Convention. 116 Article 1(1) of the Convention. 23