155. Based on the aforementioned considerations, the Commission considers that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the rape suffered by V.R.P., its consequences, and the impunity – attributable to the State – in which the case remains caused emotional suffering for V.P.C. and her children Heberto, Bladimir and Nayade, in violation of the right enshrined in Article 5.1 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument. V. CONCLUSIONS 156. Based on the aforementioned considerations of fact and law, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the State of Nicaragua is responsible for violating the rights established in Articles 5, 8, 11, 19, 24 and 25 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument; and in Article 7.b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of the persons indicated in this report. VI. RECOMENDATIONS 157. By virtue of the aforementioned conclusions, THE INTER-AMERICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE STATE OF NICARAGUA, 1. Carry out the corresponding investigations and criminal processes, applying due diligence and within a reasonable time, in order to identify, prosecute and, in this case, punish the person responsible for the rape of V.R.P. The Commission notes that the criminal process against Heberto Rodríguez concluded on October 24, 2007, by means of a sentence issued by the Matagalpa Appellate Court Criminal Chamber. This sentence upheld the decision to absolve Mr. Rodríguez. Taking into account that the decision to absolve the only person identified by the victim as the aggressor remains in force domestically, the Commission recalls the concept of “fraudulent res judicata” and its connection to the principle of ne bis in idem. As the Court established in Gutiérrez and Family Vs. Argentina, presuming that the provisions of Article 8.4 of the Convention would be applicable under any circumstance would imply that the decision of a domestic judge would have preeminence over a decision taken by an InterAmerican body pursuant to the Convention. 207 It would also mean, consequently, that the application, in any circumstance, of the aforementioned Article 8.4 of this treaty, could lead to impunity and to the non-applicability of the corresponding international norms, which would not accord with the object and purpose of the Convention. 208 The Commission reiterates that the criminal process in this case was not conducted in accordance with the State of Nicaragua’s international obligations under the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará. As such, the IACHR considers that, in this case, the judicial proceedings were not adjusted to the guarantees to “due process” established in Article 8 of the American Convention. Furthermore, there was no “nonappealable judgment,” as alluded to in Article 8.4 of the American Convention. 209 The Commission emphasizes that this situation is aggravated, taking into account the nature of 207 Inter-American Court. Case of Gutiérrez and Family v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 271, par. 130. 208 Inter-American Court. Case of Gutiérrez and Family v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 271, par. 130. 209 Article 8.4 of the American Convention: An accused person acquitted by a non-appealable judgment shall not be subjected to a new trial for the same cause.