138. These characteristics of Manuela’s health, and how this could have affected the birth, were not duly taken into account at any moment of the investigation. On this point, the investigators merely asked the doctor who had performed the autopsy of the newborn if it was possible that the baby could have been expelled accidentally, and he indicated that: Yes, this possibility does exist, but […] normally the infant remains attached to the umbilical cord and although the infant could have been extracted with the cord and the placenta detached around ten minutes after the expulsion of the infant, if the placenta had detached at once, the placenta and cord would have been found with the infant. Moreover, in this case, it was a full-term pregnancy with normal labor in which the infant does not emerge all at once; rather, first the head emerges and then the infant must be turned round so that the shoulders can emerge and then there is a pause for the hips; therefore, it would be difficult for the infant to emerge at the speed indicated by the mother. This could happen in the case of a woman who had had ten children and the infant had a low birthweight; in that situation, it is possible to speak of an accident, but in this case no.249 139. The Court notes that this doctor had only examined the newborn and had not examined Manuela, and did not take into account Manuela’s health when responding to the question. 140. Therefore, this does invalidate the possibility that the newborn’s death occurred owing to the obstetric emergency suffered by Manuela or another circumstance that could not be attributed to her. To the contrary, the autopsy’s conclusion that the newborn was born alive was sufficient for the authorities to assume that a crime had occurred. Consequently, the obligation to follow up on all the logical lines of investigation was not complied with, including the possibility that the newborn’s death was not caused by Manuela. 141. The Court has also recognized that personal prejudices and gender stereotypes can affect the objectivity of state officials responsible for investigating complaints, influencing their opinion of whether or not a violent act has occurred, and their assessment of the credibility of witnesses and of the victims themselves.250 142. In the instant case, in the record resuming the facts, the investigator in charge of the case indicated that: I cannot fail to mention that, as an investigator and a woman, I consider that I would not have done what [Manuela] did. If she did not want her son, she could haves given him the chance to live; there are people who are unable to have children and desperately want them. The baby found dead and full or worms was a well-formed boy, with light brown skin […] and physically very nice looking; any woman or mother would have raised him with love […].251 143. These considerations were transcribed in the order requiring the formal opening of the preliminary proceedings with the order for Manuela’s pretrial detention.252 144. The Court notes, first, that these considerations are based on the assumption that Manuela was responsible for the crime she was accused of, because they reveal an evident bias concerning Manuela’s guilt and this, in turn, creates doubts about the objectivity of the investigation. In addition, they represent a personal opinion of the investigator based on preconceived ideas with regard to the role of women and maternity. These are ideas based on stereotypes that condition a woman’s value to being a mother and, therefore, assume that Cf. Statement by the doctor who performed the autopsy, transcribed in the judgment handed down by the Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera, department of Morazán, on August 11, 2008 (evidence file, folio 150). 249 Cf. Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 236, and Case of Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 422, para. 114. 250 251 Record of interview of February 29, 2008 (evidence file, folios 52 and 53). 252 Cf. Request for a formal investigation with pre-trial detention of February 29, 2008 (evidence file, folio 65). 43