in itself, constitute a form of discrimination, contrary to the prohibition established in Article 1(1) of the Convention.259 197. In addition, the Court notes that, during the investigation, the Public Prosecution Service never examined the possibility of whether the detention and subsequent torture of the presumed victim were motivated by Ms. Rojas Marín’s sexual orientation or gender expression. The authorities did not conduct any investigative action in relation to the derogatory comments that Ms. Rojas Marín stated she had received concerning her sexual orientation. Also, during one of the psychiatric assessment, one of those possibly responsible made homophobic comments260 which were not followed up on. B.2.d Use of discriminatory stereotyping during the investigation 198. The Court recalls that stereotyping based on sexual orientation refers to a preconception of attributes, conducts or characteristics possessed by a person based on their sexual orientation,261 in this case in particular, by homosexual men or men perceived as such. 199. In particular, the Court has recognized that personal prejudices and gender stereotypes affect the objectivity of State officials responsible for investigating complaints, influencing their perceptions when determining whether or not an act of violence occurred, and their evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and of the victims themselves. “Stereotyping distorts perceptions and results in decisions based on preconceived beliefs and myths rather than relevant facts,” “which can, in turn, lead to miscarriage of justice, including the revictimization of complainants.”262 The Court considers that the same may occur in cases of stereotyping based on sexual orientation263. 200. In this case, the Court notes that, during the investigation of the facts, the prosecutor allegedly said to the presumed victim: “but if you’re a homosexual, how am I going to believe you.”264 Also, during the investigation conducted in this case, remarks were made with regard to the previous sexual conduct of the presumed victim. 201. The report of the forensic medical examination included unnecessary information on the frequency with which the presumed victim had sexual relations and the age at which she Section]. Judgment of May 12, 2015, para. 67. Similarly see, Case of Véliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 208. Similarly see, ECHR, Case of Begheluri and Others v. Georgia, No. 28490/02 [Fourth Section]. Judgment of January 7, 2015, paras. 141 and 142; ECHR, Case of Identoba and Others v. Georgia, No. 73235/12 [Fourth Section]. Judgment of August 12, 2015, para. 67. Similarly see, Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 223. 259 260 Cf. Psychiatric assessment of JLM of August 19, 2008 (evidence file, folio 2744). Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 111, and Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, para. 301. 261 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez Hernández et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2017. Series C No. 339, para. 173, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 326. Similarly see, Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General recommendation 33 on women’s access to justice by women, 2015, para. 26. 262 Cf. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Handbook on Prisoners with Special Needs: Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) prisoners, 2009, p. 104, and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Violence against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Persons in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.rev.2, November 12, 2015, para. 462. 263 Cf. Statement made by Azul Rojas Marín at the public hearing on merits before the Inter-American Commission on December 1, 2016 (evidence file, folder of audiovisual material, minutes 10:10 to 10:23), and Statement of witness Víctor Álvarez at the public hearing on August 27, 2019. 264 53