110. The Court confirms that, after the parents of the alleged victim learned of the sexual violence
she suffered and after having sought psychological support, on July 15, 2002, Brisa's father first
reported the events to the DNI, in Cochabamba, Bolivia. Following the DNI's request for a forensic
medical examination of Brisa200 to Dr. M.R.C., said examination was carried out on July 31, 2002.
The Commission and the representatives argued that the examination in question was carried out by
a male doctor and five male medical students, according to what the alleged victim stated. However,
the State argued that the medical examination was carried out by the doctor, as can be seen from
the signature on the expert forensic medical certificate.
111. In this regard, from the analysis of the evidence in the file, the Court confirms that Dr. M.R.C.
was on duty on July 31, 2002,201 and participated in carrying out the aforementioned forensic
gynecological examination, as stated in the certificate signed by her.202 Nevertheless, the Court
considers that the presence of the signature of Dr. M.R.C. on the certificate and the fact that she was
on duty on the day of the exam and was in charge of carrying out the medical assessment does not
necessarily imply that she was the only professional present, especially when it is known that, at the
time, "it was common practice for the doctors to be accompanied by practicing students.”203
Additionally, it is noted that there is no information that a record has been prepared regarding the
exam - which in itself is a lack of due diligence - so there is no evidence of how it was carried out,
its circumstances, any possible questions asked of the alleged victim or information that may have
been provided.
112. Taking into consideration the central role that the statement by a victim of sexual violence
has in cases of this nature, as the Court has already pointed out on previous occasions,204 in addition
to the evidentiary elements that corroborate Brisa's statement in this case (supra, para. 47), the
Court considers it proven that Brisa had a traumatic experience during that first forensic
gynecological examination. In this regard, it should be noted that the mother of the alleged victim
was not allowed to accompany her during the examination.205 Therefore, the Court considers it
proven that male professionals and/or students participated in the examination carried out on the
alleged victim. Brisa asked that the students not be in the room, but her request was not heeded
and some of them even used force to oblige her to open her legs when they carried out the medical
examination, despite the fact that Brisa clearly stated that she was in pain and uncomfortable, which
was ignored by those present.206 In view of this, the Court considers that there were a series of
200
Ms. Oviedo Bellot clarified that “it was a daily practice at that time that, in cases of sexual violence against a child or
adolescent, a letter was first prepared addressed to the forensic doctor who is part of the district attorney's office. The exam
was carried out and validated under the seal of the district attorney's office. If the Public Prosecutor’s Office considered that
the method of obtaining the forensic medical certificate had generated defects of nullity in the proceedings, it had the
procedural remedies to correct it, such as, for example, requesting data that appears in the forensic doctor's record as provided
for in [Article] 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure”. Cf. Statement of María Leonor Oviedo Bellot, supra (evidence file, folio
11454).
Cf. Letter signed by the National Director of the Forensic Investigations Institute of the State Attorney General's Office,
supra (evidence file, folio 10447).
201
202
Cf. Forensic medical certificate signed by M.R.C., forensic medical doctor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Cochabamba,
on July 31, 2002 (evidence file, folio 9500).
203
Cf. Statement of María Leonor Oviedo Bellot, supra (evidence file, folios 11453 and 11459).
Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 100, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits,
Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 323.
204
205
The Court does not have information about who prevented Ms. Luz Stella Losada from entering the examination room.
According to Brisa's mother, “Brisa enters her examination at that forensic place and comes out devastated. I try to ask her
what happened. Brisa was upset, she really didn't tell me anything, she was, I understood, full of anger and pain. I respected
her silence, but it was very traumatic.” Cf. Statement of Luz Stella Losada during the public hearing, supra.
206
The expert witness Cillero Bruñol highlighted that the consent of the victim of sexual violence, her parents or her legal
representatives is a central element for the preparation of the necessary record to attest the consent of the girl or adolescent
regarding the forensic examination, as well as “of the investigations that were carried out to avoid any type of dispute
regarding the events and conditions in which the expert assessment was carried out.” Additionally, he indicated that, in some
36