62 viii) the investigations of the case were archived for three years and 10 months.251 180. Moreover, the Court notes with particular concern that the authorities in charge of the investigation focused their efforts on repeatedly summoning Mrs. Rosendo Cantú to make statements, and not on obtaining and safeguarding other evidence. The Court emphasizes that, in cases of rape, insofar as possible, the investigation must try to avoid re-victimization or the re-experiencing of the profoundly traumatic experience each time the victim recalls or testifies about what happened. 181. Furthermore, the Court notes that, in the present case, several of the government employees who intervened initially in the complaint made by Mrs. Rosendo Cantú showed a complete absence of motivation, sensitivity, and capacity. Likewise, the failure to use an action protocol by the medical officials and the officials of the Public Prosecutor’s Office who initially attended Mrs. Rosendo Cantú were especially serious and had negative consequences in regards to the attention merited to the victim and on the legal investigation of the rape. Regarding this aspect, the Court stresses that stated by the expert witness Arroyo Vargas, during the public hearing of the case, regarding that in “cases of sexual violence, the minimum standards [of gathering evidence] must be immediate action and speed.”252 182. Based on the abovementioned considerations and on the State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility, the Inter-American Court concludes that the State authorities did not act with due diligence in the investigation of the rape of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, which, additionally, exceeded a reasonable time. Consequently, the State violated the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and did not comply with the obligations established in Article 7(b) of the Inter-American Convention for the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women, to the detriment of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú. * * * 183. In relation to that alleged by the representatives and Commission regarding discrimination in the access to justice on behalf of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, the Court notes that the representatives considered violated the rights to equal protection and nondiscrimination in the access to justice of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, recognized in Articles 8 and 25, 24, and 1(1) of the American Convention, whereas the Commission only raised arguments regarding the non-compliance with the latter rule and its corresponding substantive norms. In this regard, the Court recalls that the general obligation of Article 1(1) refers to the State’s responsibility to respect and guarantee “without discrimination” the rights contained in the American Convention, while Article 24 protects the right to “equal protection of the law.”253 In other words, if it is argued that a 251 The investigations of the case in the Military Justice System were archived between March 12, 2004 and January 10, 2008. Cf. Agreement of Consideration of the Fourteenth Investigative Agent of the Military Public Prosecutors, adjoined to the Office of Preliminary Investigations of the Attorney General of Military Justice, of February 26, 2004 (case file of annexes to the answer to the application, tome V, folios 9788 to 9803 and tome X, folios 11916 to 11922). See also, brief of observations of the State in the processing of the case before the Inter-American Commisison on Human Rights, supra note, folios 4390 to 4406, and Record of the Agent of the Public Prosecutor of the Common Jurisdiction, adjoined to the General Office of Control of Investigatory Services, of January 10, 2008 (case file of annexes to the answer to the application, tome XV, folio 13786). 252 253 Cf. Statement of expert witness Arroyo Vargas rendered during the public hearing on May 27, 2010. Cf. Proposed Amendments of the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, paras. 53 and 54. Also cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al.,