violence against women is a form of discrimination.161 Additionally, judicial ineffectiveness and inefficiency in cases of violence against women constitutes in itself discrimination against women with regard to access to justice.162 34. Based on the body of evidence, it can be concluded that no serious, impartial, and effective investigation using all legal measures available, with determination and effectiveness, and aimed at determining the truth with enhanced due diligence was conducted into the allegations of sexual violence committed against Brisa De Angulo. Effectively, as Trial Court No. 2 itself found in its ruling to acquit in the second criminal proceeding of September 23, 2005, “there was no efficient investigation. Jurisdictional control of the investigation was not exercised [...] The evidence was not pertinent to the aim of the investigation and was not useful for discovering the truth. The witness testimony offered, notwithstanding its indirect character, was not convincing to the Court." This led the Court to conclude that the "the omissions in the investigation make it impossible for the Court to reach a conclusion based on the facts described, much less to find the accused guilty of the crime alleged.” The IACHR finds that, effectively, the Bolivian Office of the Public Prosecutor did not conduct an efficient investigation into the facts aimed at actively discovering the truth of what took place, nor did it properly pursue the criminal proceeding based on the available evidence. 35. The Commission reiterates the Court’s settled case law to the effect that the bodies of the Inter-American System do not function as an instance for appeal or review of judgments issued in domestic proceedings, nor does it act as a criminal court that can judge the criminal responsibility of individuals, as domestic courts are responsible for applying criminal law.163 Therefore, it does not fall to the IACHR to issue a ruling on Eduardo Gutiérrez Angulo’s criminal liability, nor, in the circumstances of the specific case, on the criminal offense appropriate to the conduct alleged. Rather, it must determine whether the irregularities during the investigation and prosecution amounted to violations of the guarantees established in the Convention. In this regard, the Commission finds that, effectively, the lack of a serious, impartial, and effective investigation and of an efficient prosecution led to the criminal proceedings being overturned and sent back for new trials, violating the rights of Brisa De Angulo to an effective judicial remedy. 36. Also, the Commission notes that during the investigation and trials, the necessary measures were not taken to prevent Brisa's revictimization, and the proceedings were not conducted from a gender perspective or a perspective that took into account childhood, nor did they adhere to the principle of strict due diligence and enhanced and special protection required by allegations of sexual violence committed against a teen. Effectively, first of all, the State did not grant immediate and professional medical and psychological care to the alleged victim. Rather, it was her family who took charge of her treatment, to the point of establishing an institution to help other victims in similar situations due to the lack of such support systems in Bolivia. Second of all, regarding the statements, as described by the alleged victim, the prosecutor subjected her to traumatic interviews in an intimidating, hostile, insensitive, and inappropriate environment. Also, although during the first criminal proceeding, an attempt was made to prevent the girl from experiencing trauma and revictimization by ordering the parties to leave the chamber during Brisa's testimony, the Court did not take the necessary measures to, at the same time, protect the rights of the accused. The Court's failure to take these measures meant that Brisa had to testify again during the second criminal proceeding. In addition to this, measures were not taken to ensure that prior to her testimony, the adolescent was not threatened and harassed by the witnesses for the accused, as she describes having happened. 37. Third, regarding the physical examinations conducted, as described in the proven facts, in July 2002, Brisa was subjected to an abusive forensic examination that violated her privacy, in which she was not given the opportunity to choose the sex of the forensic specialist; the record does not show that the physician or the students attending the examination had special training on attending to minor victims of sexual violence; there Inter-American Court. Judgment, Cotton Field, para. 394-395. Inter-American Court. Judgment of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al., para. 291. Also see Judgment, Velásquez Paiz et al., para. 176; Case of Véliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 208. 163 Inter-American Court. Case of Mohamed vs. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 81; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 4, 1998. Series C No. 41, para. 83; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 90, Merits, Velásquez Rodríguez, para. 134. 161 162 20