Convention, individualized and special measures in cases where the victim is a child or adolescent, above all when an act of sexual violence has occurred and, even more so in cases of rape. Consequently (...) the Court will analyze the alleged violations of rights to the detriment of a girl not only on the basis of international instruments on violence against women; it will also examine them "in light of the international body of law on the protection of children" (...) which should serve to define the content and scope of the obligations assumed by the State when the rights of children and adolescents are analyzed,186 and in the instant case of the State's increased due diligence obligation.187 161. The European Court has established that in cases of violence against children, States have a stepped-up (positive) obligation to initiate investigations to throw light on what happened 188 and it is essential that States implement mechanisms to allow complaints to be processed promptly.189 Thus, it is particularly important that the authorities in charge of the investigation conduct it resolutely and effectively, mindful of the duty of society to reject violence against women and the of the obligations of the State to eradicate it and create trust among victims in the state institutions responsible for their protection. 190 162. The Inter-American Court has pointed out that “criminal proceedings in sexual violence cases face intrinsic technical difficulties that make prosecution difficult. There is often scant evidence of what happened, the accused regularly denies any wrongdoing, and the discussion comes down to one person's word against another's. Add to that the prejudices and pre-conceived and stereotypical ideas proper to a patriarchal system that exist in the public consciousness regarding sexual violence." 191 Regarding the presence of stereotypes and prejudices in internal procedures for investigating acts of violence against women, the Court has pointed out: (...) the gender stereotype refers to a preconception of the attributes, conduct, innate characteristics or roles that are or should be played by men and women respectively, and that it is possible to associate the subordination of women with practices based on socially dominant and persistent gender stereotypes.192 (…) Stereotypes "distort perceptions and give rise to decisions based on preconceptions and myths, instead of facts," which in turn may lead to denial of justice, including revictimization of the complainants.193 163. The Commission recalls what it stated in its report entitled “Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas” to the effect that: [t]he influence exerted by discriminatory socio-cultural patterns may cause a victim’s credibility to be questioned in cases involving violence, or lead to a tacit assumption that she I/A Court H.R. Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350, par. 155. Citing: Cf. The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, and Case of Pacheco Tineo family v. Bolivia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, par. 217. 187 I/A Court HR. Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350, par. 155. 188 ECHR, M. and M. v. Croatia Judgment of September 3, 2015, par. 136. 189 ECHR, O’Keeffe v. Ireland. Judgment of January 28, 2014, par. 148. 190 I/A Court HR. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010, Series C No. 216, par. 177. 191 I/A Court H.R. Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350, par. 264. 192 I/A Court H.R. Case of Gutiérrez Hernández et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2017. Series C No. 339, par. 169. Citing. Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, par. 401, and Case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala, para. 180. 193 I/A Court H.R. Case of Gutiérrez Hernández et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2017. Series C No. 339, par. 173. Citing: Cf. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation No. 33 on women's access to justice, 2015, para. 26. 186