The authorities shall avoid as much as possible subjecting them to more than one physical examination, as it can be revictimizing. The medical examination in these cases must be carried out by a professional with broad expertise and experience in cases of violence against children and adolescents who will seek to minimize and avoid causing them additional trauma or re-victimizing them. It is recommendable for the victim or their legal representative, as corresponds, to be able to choose the sex of the professional, and for the exam to be conducted by a health professional who is a specialist in child-youth gynecology, with specific training in conducting medical forensic examinations in cases of abuse and sexual assault. Likewise, the medical examination must be conducted with the informed consent of the victim or the victim’s legal representative, depending on their level of maturity, taking into account the right of the child or adolescent to be heard in a suitable setting and for their right to privacy to be respected, allowing the victim to be accompanied by an individual they trust. Whether an expert gynecological report is necessary should be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the time passed since the sexual violence took place. In view of this, the Court finds that the request for an expert gynecological report must provide a detailed rationale, and, if not necessary or the informed consent of the victim is not secured, the examination must be omitted. Under no circumstances shall this serve as an excuse for discrediting the victim and/or impeding an investigation.153 30. Also, as the Court has found in similar cases, the presence of multiple individuals during the gynecological examination of a girl victim of sexual violence runs contrary to the standards on the subject and constitutes a violation of the right guaranteed in article 11(2) of the American Convention, as it amounts to “arbitrary interference in their privacy. The Court finds that these types of examinations must be conducted a single time, by a physician trained in the subject and who is an expert in cases of girls who are victims of abuse and sexual assault, and in the presence only of those who strictly need to be there."154 31. As far as a reasonable period of time, Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes that one of the elements of due process is that courts must decide on cases brought before them within a reasonable period of time. In this regard, an extensive delay could in itself constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial,155 for which reason it is the State’s responsibility to explain and demonstrate why it has needed more time than reasonable to issue a final judgment in a specific case.156 32. In this regard, the reasonableness of the period must be assessed in relation to the total duration of the criminal procedure. 157 Pursuant to the terms of Article 8 (1) of the American Convention and the specific circumstances of the case, the Commission will take into consideration, based on the specific circumstances of the case, the following four elements: i) the complexity of the matter; ii) the procedural activity of the interested party; iii) the conduct of judicial authorities; and iv) the effect the legal situation has had on the person involved in the process.158 33. Lastly, pursuant to the general obligation under Article 1(1) of the Convention, States must respect and guarantee, “without discrimination,” the rights contained in the Convention; therefore, if a State discriminates in respecting or guaranteeing a rights set forth in the Convention, it violates Article 1(1) and the substantive right in question.159 Additionally, Article 24 of the Convention protects the right to equal protection before the law, meaning that States have an obligation "to not include discriminatory regulations in their legal systems, eliminate discriminatory regulations, combat practices of this nature, and establish guidelines and other measures recognizing and ensuring the effective equal protection of all persons.”160 As the Court has found, Inter-American Court. Judgment of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al., para. 169. Inter-American Court. Judgment of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al., para. 176. 155 Inter-American Court. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 160; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 85; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 166. 156 Inter-American Court. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment dated August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 142. 157 Inter-American Court. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 129; Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 104; Case Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 168. 158 Inter-American Court. Judgment, Santo Domingo Massacre, para. 164. 159 Inter-American Court. Judgment of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al., para. 289. 160 Inter-American Court. Judgment of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al., para. 289. 153 154 19