of violence against a woman, it is particularly important that the authorities in charge of the investigation carry it out with determination and effectiveness, taking into account the duty of society to reject violence against women and the obligations of the State to eradicate it and to give victims confidence in state institutions for their protection.161 95. For cases of rape and violence against adult women, the Court has established a series of criteria that States must follow so that the investigations and criminal proceedings initiated are substantiated with the enhanced due diligence that is required.162 Similarly, in the case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, the Court had the opportunity to develop its case law regarding a State’s obligations when the investigations and criminal proceedings take place in the framework of a case of rape committed against a girl. Similarly, the Court emphasizes that the sub judice case deals with sexual violence committed against a 16-year-old girl, therefore, it is also necessary that the case be studied in light of this intersectionality between gender and childhood.163 This is because the fact that Brisa is a woman and was a child at the time of the events placed her in a situation of double vulnerability, not only in regard to the perpetrator of the crime, but also in regard to the judicial process that would be carried out against them. 96. The Court has indicated that children164 are holders of the human rights that correspond to all human beings and also enjoy special rights derived from their status, to which the family, society, Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega and others v. Mexico, supra, para. 193, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para.156. 161 In a criminal investigation for sexual violence, the Court has established that it is necessary, inter alia, that: (i) the victim's statement be made in a comfortable and safe environment, which provides privacy and trust; (ii) the victim's statement is recorded in such a way as to avoid or limit the need to repeat it; (iii) medical, health and psychological care is provided to the victim, both on an emergency basis and on an ongoing basis if required, through a care protocol that aims to reduce the consequences of the rape; (iv) a complete and detailed medical and psychological examination is immediately carried out by suitable and trained personnel, if possible of the sex indicated by the victim, offering that she be accompanied by someone she trusts if she so wishes; (v) the investigative acts are documented and coordinated and the evidence is diligently handled, taking sufficient samples, carrying out studies to determine the possible authorship of the incident, securing other evidence such as the victim's clothing, immediately investigating the scene of the events and guaranteeing the correct chain of custody, and (vi) access to free legal assistance is provided to the victim during all stages of the process. Furthermore, in cases of alleged acts of violence against women, the criminal investigation must include a gender perspective and be carried out by officers trained in similar cases and in caring for victims of gender-based discrimination and violence. Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 455; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra, paras. 194, 251 and 252; Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, paras. 242 and 252; Case of Favela Nova Brasilia v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C No. 333, para. 254, and Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 12, 2020. Series C No. 402, para. 180. 162 The Court has already heard of circumstances in which “multiple factors of vulnerability and risk of discrimination associated with [the] condition of a person as a girl [and] woman” converged in an intersectional manner, among other factors, and has indicated that “certain groups of women suffer discrimination throughout their lives based on more than one factor combined with their sex.” Cf. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, paras. 288 and 290, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 2, 2021. Series C No. 441, para. 12. In this sense, expert witness Cillero Bruñol indicated that “to evaluate cases like the present one, a double focus is required – gender and childhood – that allows us to recognize the position of inequality and structural subordination of women, girls and adolescents, due to their gender and age. Specifically, it must be evaluated whether a gender- and age-sensitive approach was adopted in the judicial proceedings carried out by the State, considering that it was a judicial process for the crime of rape. Age is noted as the first potential factor of intersectional discrimination, placing girls and adolescents at a much higher risk of suffering gender violence.” Written version of the expert opinion of Miguel Cillero Bruñol given during the public hearing of this case (evidence file, folio 11686). 163 Recently in Advisory Opinion OC-29/02, the Court reiterated that, by girl or boy, it must be understood “any person who has not reached the age of 18, unless he or she had reached adulthood earlier by mandate of law.” Cf. Differentiated approaches with respect to certain groups of persons deprived of liberty (Interpretation and scope of articles 1(1), 4(1), 5, 11(2), 12, 13, 17(1), 19, 24 and 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights and other human rights instruments). Advisory Opinion OC-29/22 of May 30, 2022. Series A No. 29, para. 170. 164 30