threats, the Trial Court imposed the responsibility for reporting the facts226 to the corresponding authorities on them, instead of ordering protective measures or investigating the reported situation. 121. Similarly, with respect to the first hearing, the Court's attention is drawn to the content of the judgment of March 28, 2003, in which Sentencing Court No. 4 unanimously ruled that the accused was the author of the crime of aggravated statutory rape, instead of the crime of rape, as it did not consider the use of violence or intimidation as proven (supra para. 60). In this regard, it noted, among other reasons, that “it had not been convincingly demonstrated that the element of 'physical violence' had occurred in the successive sexual abuses” and that intimidation had not been demonstrated “in an indubitable manner”, since based on “certain personality traits of […] Brisa,” such as her “strong personality,” “it [was] not possible to conceive that Brisa has been intimidated by [the accused].”227 Beyond the use of gender stereotypes as one of the bases of the decision, which will be analyzed below (infra section b.4), the Court warns that said reasoning demonstrates a flagrant lack of training and sensitivity regarding the particular circumstances in cases of sexual violence committed against a girl, especially in her home and by a person who held power over her and, consequently, the absence of a gender and childhood perspective when examining the case. 122. In addition to the above, the Court finds that, during the second hearing, the following actions denote the lack of strict and enhanced due diligence that was required in this case: there was no admission or appropriate assessment of the victim’s statement, supported up to that point by three psychological and two medical reviews (supra paras. 46, 47, 52 and 69), especially regarding the lack of consent for the sexual act; the presiding judge announced that no crime had occurred before hearing the evidence.228 Additionally, he warned the alleged victim and her father, while he was taking their statements, that he would suspend their testimony and remove them from the courtroom if Brisa did not stop crying.229 The latter constitutes an absolute disrespect for the dignity and psychological well-being of a victim of sexual violence230 and denotes not only the judicial authority’s lack of “empathic neutrality” towards Brisa, but also the creation of a completely hostile environment. 123. Furthermore, the Court notes that the State did not act with due diligence to prevent the escape of the accused after the annulment of the acquittal in May 2007. In effect, according to his own testimony during the second hearing, he stated that he had not escaped, although his family had asked him to do so.231 In addition to this, and being aware of the escape of the accused, the State did not carry out any relevant steps to achieve his arrest and extradition between 2008 and 2014, and acted excessively slowly until 2019 (supra paras. 70 to 73). The above also illustrates an absolute lack of due diligence by Bolivia, especially in a case in which the victim was a girl, who for 20 years has remained waiting for proceedings to continue and the impunity of the case to be reversed. 124. Based on the preceding considerations, the Court concludes that the State did not take the necessary measures to avoid Brisa’s revictimization,232 nor did it conduct the criminal process with a 226 Cf. Record of oral trial hearing from March 17 to 25, 2003 (evidence file, folio 10372). Cf. Judgment issued by the Sentencing Court No. 4 of Cochabamba, supra (evidence file, folios 7667,7668,7673), and Record of reading of the sentence of March 28, 2003 (evidence file, folio 9690). 227 228 Cf. Record of oral trial hearing from September 15 to 20, 2005 (evidence file, folio 9826 to 9871). Cf. Record of the oral trial hearing from September 15 to 20, 2005 (evidence file, folios 9852 to 9853); Statement of Brisa De Angulo Losada during the public hearing, supra; and Statement of José Miguel De Angulo, supra (evidence file, folios 11436 to 11437), and Letter from Brisa De Angulo Losada, supra (evidence file, folio 7254). 229 230 Expert witness Šimonović asserted that, in her expert opinion, “trials like this are not only a violation of Brisa's right as a victim, but also demonstrate why so many victims of sexual violence are reluctant to use the judicial system, allowing a culture of impunity for the perpetrators.” Cf. Expert opinion of Dubravka Šimonović, supra (evidence file, folio 11495). 231 Cf. Record of oral trial hearing from September 15 to 20, 2005 (evidence file, folio 9870). This Court considers it pertinent to note that the interrogation of the alleged victim by the State during the public hearing before the Court also resulted in revictimizing, not only by virtue of some of the questions asked and frequent 232 41