that the State adopted measures to prevent the recusal mechanism from delaying and giving rise to impunity in this case. 124. The Commission notes that many of the irregularities described in this section were confirmed by the Office of the Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights, which issued statements in 2002, 2003 and 2005 identifying these irregularities and concluded that “the crime committed against the girl (…) remains in impunity, even though she has undoubtedly and irrefutably identified the aggressor.” Furthermore, it concluded that “the sentence issued by the court (…) is (…) unjust and violates the girl’s human rights.” 125. Finally, the Commission observes that the process did not include the permanent and effective participation of any specialized institution in order to protect V.R.P.’s rights, with respect to which the Inter-American Court has established the following: the Court considers that, in order to facilitate access to justice for vulnerable persons, the participation of other State institutions and bodies is essential so that they can assist in the judicial proceedings in order to ensure that the rights of such persons are protected and defended.188 (…) Moreover, the Court recalls that while procedural rights and their related guarantees apply to all persons, in the case of children the exercise of those rights requires, due to their special status as minors, that certain specific measures be adopted for them to effectively enjoy those rights and guarantees. 189 The types of specific measures are determined by each State Party and may include direct or joint representation,190 as the case may be, of the minor in order to reinforce the guarantee of the principle of the best interests of the minor. 191 126. The Commission considers that the aforementioned is clearly applicable in this case, as the girl’s vulnerable condition was clearly aggravated as a victim of rape. In spite of this, the State did not guarantee V.R.P.’s rights by including other specialized institutions in the process, which had serious effects vis-à-vis this case remaining in impunity, and the various forms of re-victimization mentioned in this section. It is worth noting that the prosecutor also did not comply with her duties during the process; she committed multiple oversights, including some recognized by the State, such as when she mentioned that “ideally another prosecutor would have taken up the case (…) but the Public Ministry is very understaffed.” 127. For these reasons, the Commission considers that due diligence was not applied in clarifying the facts and punishing the guilty party in this case. Consequently, the IACHR concludes that the State violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, established in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, as well as in Article 7.b of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of V.R.P. and V.P.C. Furthermore, the Commission concludes that the State violated Article 19 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of V.R.P. 128. In the same sense, and taking into account the aforementioned analysis of the violation of V.R.P’s substantive rights as a result of the rape, the Commission considers that, due to the omissions and 188 Inter-American Court. Case of Furlan and Family Members v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, par. 241. 189 Inter-American Court. Case of Furlan and Family Members v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, par. 241. Citing. Consultative Opinion CO-17/02, par. 98 190 Inter-American Court. Case of Furlan and Family Members v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, par. 241. Citing. Mutatis mutandis, Case of Atala Riffo and Girls v. Chile, par. 199 191 Inter-American Court. Case of Furlan and Family Members v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, par. 242.