B.2.b The medical examination that was performed 187. In cases in which there are indications of torture, the medical examinations performed on the presumed victim should be conducted with prior informed consent, and without the presence of law enforcement or other state agents.237 Also, on becoming aware of acts of rape, a complete and detailed medical and psychological examination should be performed by appropriate trained personnel, if possible of the sex preferred by the victim, advising the victim that they may be accompanied by a person of confidence if they so wish.238 This examination should be performed in accordance with protocols specifically addressed at documenting evidence in cases of sexual violence.239 188. In this case, on February 27, 2008, at 2 p.m., the presumed victim reported the detention, the forced nudity, the comments on her sexual orientation, the beatings she received while detained, and that the agents had tried to introduce a police baton in her anus.240 The obligation to perform a forensic medical examination immediately arose as a result of this first statement by the presumed victim on February 27, at 2 p.m., where she had already reported ill-treatment and sexual violence. The presumed victim reported the rape for the first time in her statement of February 28, 2008.241 The medical examination was performed on February 29, 2008 at 12:30 p.m.242 189. The case file contains contradictory evidence on the reasons for this delay. On the one hand, according to the presumed victim, she had gone to the police station on February 27 at 3 p.m. and on February 28 at 4 p.m. and, on both days, owing to delays by the prosecution service it had been impossible to carry out the medical examination. 243 On the other hand, the presumed victim’s statement of February 28 reveals that, up until that time she had not Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No, 187, para. 92, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 275. 237 Mutatis mutandis, Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 252, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 275. 238 Mutatis mutandis, Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 252, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 275. See, for example, World Health Organization, Guidelines for medico-legal care for victims of sexual violence, Geneva, 2003. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/ 924154628X.pdf?ua=1. 239 Cf. Verbal complaint made by Azul Rojas Marín at the Casa Grande Police Station on February 27, 2008 (evidence file, folio 2793). 240 Cf. Statement made by Azul Rojas Marín at the Casa Grande Police Station on February 28, 2008 (evidence file, folio 2811). 241 242 Cf. Forensic Medical Certificate of February 29, 2008 (evidence file, folio 2822). In this regard, the presumed victim stated “that the prosecutor knew about the incident on February 27, [2008], at around 3 p.m. when the major […] called her on her mobile phone, and she arrived at the Casa Grande Police Station at around 6.30 p.m., taking my statement and organizing an identification procedure until after 9 p.m., and that same day the prosecutor gave me an official note for the forensic physician to examine the injuries.” Regarding the delay in performing the medical examination from February 28, at 4.30 p.m. to February 29, at 12.30 p.m., the Court notes that, according to the complaint filed by the presumed victim against the prosecution service, “the prosecutor […] abusing of her position prevent [the] plaintiff from undergoing the forensic medical examination [on February 28, 2008,] because she retained the plaintiff in her office until late, and the forensic physician was no longer in his office when [the plaintiff] left.” The presumed victim indicated that this was “so that the injuries and the traces of rape would not be noticeable.” Cf. Statement made by Azul Rojas Marín on May 25, 2009, before the Superior Prosecutor, Head of the Decentralized Office of Internal Control of La Libertad and Santa (evidence file, folio 198), and Complaint filed by Azul Rojas Marín before the Superior Prosecutor, Head of the Decentralized Office of Internal Control of La Libertad on March 28, 2008 (evidence file, folio 3009). 243 50