117. In short, the Commission considers that the manner in which these proceedings were carried out constitutes a form of re-victimization to the detriment of the dignity, integrity and effective access to justice of a child victim of sexual violence. This conclusion is consistent with the Victoria Motta Hospital’s psychiatric report, which stated that the judge’s instructions resulted in the re-victimization of V.R.P. 118. Fourth, the Commission considers that during criminal proceedings concerning the rape of a child, the State must provide the victim with medical and psychological care. Such care must be both emergency and on-going if necessary, by means of a treatment protocol in order to mitigate the effects of the rape. 119. In this case, the IACHR notes that during the proceedings, according to the information submitted by the parties, the State did not provide V.R.P. with the healthcare services necessary to protect her physical and psychological health, despite the reports indicating that V.R.P. required, at the very least, psychological attention. The IACHR emphasizes that the State itself recognized that it did not provide V.R.P. with medical attention during the proceedings, maintaining that Nicaragua is a poor State, reason which is not in accordance with international legal standards. The Commission continues to note that, according to more recent mental health studies, V.R.P. remains seriously scarred from the rape she suffered as a child. This situation could have been contained by the State had it provided her with the attention she needed at the time. 120. Fifth, the Commission recalls that the Court established that in cases such as this, the investigation should be documented and coordinated, and all necessary measures must be taken to determine the perpetrator of the crime. The Commission observes that, according to the documentation submitted by the parties, V.P.C. and V.R.P. explicitly identified the girl’s father as having committed the rape from the very beginning. Notwithstanding, within the few elements of the case file available to the Commission, there is no information demonstrating that due diligence was applied in searching for the perpetrator. For example, medical examinations were not performed on V.R.P’s father, even though she was diagnosed with an exclusively sexually transmitted disease. 121. Sixth, the IACHR emphasizes that there are complaints regarding irregularities in the jury selection and the issuance of the decision to absolve in April 2002. As such, the Commission notes the petitioner’s allegations with respect to: i) the unjustified suspension of the trial on two occasions; ii) the violation of the right to defense due to the rejection of the prosecution’s request for the participation of two additional lawyers during the trial; and iii) the suspected delivery of an envelope to the jury by one of the defense lawyers at the end of the trial. In relation with the decision to absolve in April 2002, the IACHR recalls that the obligation to provide the grounds for decisions is a guarantee related to the correct administration of justice. In addition, the justification demonstrates to the parties that they have been heard and, in those cases where the decision can be appealed, allows them to contest the decision and to obtain another examination of the matter before a higher court.187 122. In spite of the seriousness of some of these irregularities, one of which could constitute a case of possible corruption, the Commission notes that the States failed to adequately investigate the alleged irregularities. The Commission notes that following the decision to absolve in April 2002, V.P.C’s lawyer filed various appeals questioning these irregularities. 123. Based on the available information, the Commission observes that these appeals were not granted. As such, V.R.P. and her mother were not provided with the possibility of their complaints being adequately analyzed so that the necessary corrective measures could be applied to the investigation. The IACHR emphasizes that, according to the available information, more than one judge recused themself from taking up the case for being connected to the defendant by affinity, and that the State itself recognized that one judge recused himself “without explanation.” The Commission has not received information indicating 187 I/A Court H.R. Case of Chocrón - Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 118.