118. Brisa's mother corroborated the facts cited above in her witness statement before the Court.221 The aforementioned prosecutor, in her testimony presented to this Court, asserted: “I never conducted an interview alone with […] Brisa Liliana De Angulo, but rather her parents, as complainants and plaintiffs, were the ones who approached the prosecutor's office to follow up on the case and request or coordinate investigative actions or to present their briefs. I never made any contact."222 However, taking into account the statement of the alleged victim, corroborated by her mother and the circumstances of the case, the Court considers what Brisa reported as sufficiently proven regarding the circumstances of the initial contact she had with Prosecutor N.T.A., without the presence of her mother or father or her legal representative. As observed, in light of the previously established standards (supra paras. 104 to 106), instead of being empathetic, sensitive, and duly trained to interview a girl victim of sexual violence, Prosecutor N.T.A. interacted with Brisa without any gender or childhood perspective, in a disrespectful manner, repeating gender stereotypes, intimidating her, threatening her with criminal prosecution, asking her to repeat her story, in an apparent effort to detect contradictions and, thus, ended up re-victimizing her. 119. Furthermore, it is noted that, contrary to what was stated by the prosecutor in her statement,223 all officials involved in the investigation and criminal proceedings initiated as a result of sexual violence perpetrated against a girl must be properly trained to interact with the victim, which also means having a broad understanding of the consequences of the trauma resulting from rape, especially so as not to create re-victimizing situations in the context of judicial proceedings. iii) Other state acts and omissions 120. Additionally, the Court identifies other acts and omissions that demonstrate the State's lack of due diligence. In effect, Brisa was not offered the necessary psychological and/or psychiatric support at the beginning of the judicial process until her recovery, only to be accompanied during some of the procedural acts by a psychologist whom she did not know.224 In this regard, this Court has highlighted that comprehensive care for a girl victim is not only limited to the actions of the judicial authorities during the progress of the criminal proceedings in order to protect her rights and ensure her participation is non-revictimizing, but that this care must be comprehensive and multidisciplinary before, during and after investigations and criminal proceedings. Additionally, the Court has considered that there must be a coordinated and integrated approach that provides various care and support services to the girl to safeguard her current well-being and subsequent development.225 Furthermore, the prosecutor in charge did not propose the alleged victim as a witness, ignoring the importance of the testimony of victims of sexual violence in crimes of that nature. Thus, the private prosecution had to propose it. The victim's statement was not recorded to avoid its repetition in the future and the participation of the accused's lawyer was not allowed in the aforementioned statement, which subsequently caused the first trial to be annulled due to the violation of his right to a defense. The Court also notes that on March 24, 2003, when taking the statement of the alleged victim and her family who indicated that they had suffered harassment and Ms. Stella Losada declared before the Court that “[t]he prosecutor requested that she wanted an interview with Brisa, [...] and at that appointment, when Brisa entered, the prosecutor did not allow me to enter, and I had to stay outside, Brisa came out upset, that wasn't my girl, something happened in there, and I wanted to ask her. Brisa didn't answer me, so I asked her, please, let's go have a cup of coffee, a juice somewhere, calm down, you're with me, and she agreed, and when she was calmer, I asked her, please, Brisa, start telling me everything you remember.” Cf. Statement of Luz Stella Losada during the public hearing, supra. 221 222 Cf. Statement of N.T.A, supra (evidence file, folio 11634). In her testimony, when responding to a question that had been asked by the Inter-American Commission about whether she was certified in trauma-informed management in cases of child sexual violence, Prosecutor N.T.A. stated that they considered that “this answer would have to be answered by the psychologist who interviewed Brisa Liliana de Angulo, since my work is not directed at the management of traumas, but rather at the exercise of the functions established in [Article 45] of the Organic Law of the Public Prosecutor’s Office.” Cf. Declaration of N.T. A., supra (evidence file, folio 11635). 223 224 Cf. Letter from Brisa De Angulo Losada, supra (evidence file, folios 7251 to 7252). 225 Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 194. 40