aggressor or aggressors.164 Given the nature of this type of violence, one cannot expect graphic or documentary evidence and therefore the victim’s testimony constitutes fundamental evidence of the act. 165 In prior cases, in order to deem proven a sexual assault, the Commission has taken the description given by the victim into special consideration.166 The European Court has taken into account the description given by the victim, as well as the results of medical examinations, to consider whether an act of violence has been committed against a girl.167 95. The Commission notes that it is not concerned with ruling on the criminal responsibility of the person who raped V.R.P The Commission’s analysis is centered on whether the State’s investigation vis-àvis the complaint lodged by V.R.P.’s mother was carried out in accordance with the State’s obligations under the American Convention, and the Convention of Belém do Pará in order to establish whether the State complied with its obligation to guarantee the rights violated by the rape of a girl, as well as its obligation to provide effective resources and judicial protection in such situations. 96. The Commission emphasizes that the analysis in the instant case is based in the evidence presented as well as the fact that the rape itself against the girl V.R.P. has not been objected nor questioned. 97. In first place, the Commission notes the medical reports and examinations indicating that she had difficulty defecating and pain in her anal region. Furthermore, these reports note “the previously ruptured hymen,” anal and cervical lesions, and the presence of human papilloma virus, which it is “exclusively sexually transmitted disease”. Based on the above, the medical certificate specified that V.R.P. was a victim of “sexual aggression.” 98. In second place, according to the proven facts, V.R.P. gave her account of what happened more than once after her mother filed the complaint before the Jinoteca District Criminal Court. The Commission considers that these statements are consistent with one another. In third place, according to a psychiatrist’s certificate, V.R.P. “clearly identifies (..) what happened to her boddy” and that “her statements are trustworthy, very clear and authentic.” 99. The Commission considers that all of these facts taken together demonstrate that V.R.P. was raped. Consequently, and in light of the standards described in the previous section, the Commission concludes that this was a violation of the rights to personal integrity, dignity, private life and autonomy, equality and non-discrimination, and special protection for children, to the detriment of V.R.P. 100. Taking into account that this case involves acts committed by a non-state actor, the Commission will determine in the following sections whether these violations are attributable to the Nicaraguan State, specifically whether the State complied with its duty to guarantee these rights by means of an investigation and response in accordance with its obligations under the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará. 1.4. General considerations on the obligation to investigate and punish acts of sexual violence or rape 101. The Court has established that, pursuant to Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, the States Parties are obliged to provide effective legal remedies to the victims of human rights 164 Inter-American Court. Case of Rosendo Cantú and other v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, par. 89. 165 Inter-American Court. Case of Rosendo Cantú and other v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, par. 89. 166 IACHR, Report 76/11, Case 11.769, Merits, J., Peru, July 20, 2011 par. 198. 167 ECHR, M. and M. v. Croatia. Judgment of September 3, 2015, par. 140.