VIII - 2 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES, EQUAL PROTECTION, JUDICIAL PROTECTION, PERSONAL INTEGRITY AND THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION 264 117. In this chapter, the Court will first analyze (i) the alleged violations emerging from the investigations and prosecutions related to the facts that took place on May 25, 2000, and, on the other, (ii) the violations emerging from the State’s alleged failure to investigate, prosecute, and, eventually, punish the persons responsible for the threats directed against Ms. Bedoya both before May 25, 2000 and afterwards. A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission a.1 Regarding the facts that took place on May 25, 2000 118. The Commission noted that, for 11 years, the Sixth Specialized Prosecutor's Office of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit has been conducting the preliminary investigation without establishing the facts or identifying those responsible. It also pointed out that during these first 11 years of investigation, the information relevant for establishing the facts was provided by the victim based on what she was able to glean from her own sources, amounting to an “unacceptable procedural burden” for a victim of this type of crime. Additionally, it observed that the authorities in charge of the investigation in this case did not follow procedures that measured up to international standards on investigating crimes of sexual violence. It noted that the investigation was carried out based on sexist prejudices and discriminatory stereotypes against women, with the Office of the Public Prosecutor ordering an interview to establish whether the journalist was romantically involved with a lover who was a guerrilla fighter. Additionally, according to the Commission, the judicial case file reveals the existence of evidence from the start of the investigation that State agents may have participated as perpetrators of or accessories to the facts of May 25, 2000. However, the Office of the Public Prosecutor never seriously investigated this possibility. Lastly, the Commission indicated that the criminal proceeding did not comply with the requirement of a reasonable period of time for the investigation into the events of May 25, 2000, as it has lasted more than 18 years. In this regard, it noted that during the first 11 years, "the investigation was inactive for long periods of time and produced no results." It also indicated that despite the fact that three people had already been convicted as material perpetrators of the facts, the investigation remained open with regard to other perpetrators and masterminds, including an investigation into "the possible active or passive participation of State agents" in the aforementioned facts of May 25, 2000. 119. The Commission therefore concluded 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 relation to articles 1(1), 5(1), 5(2), 11, and 13 of the treaty; Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará; and articles 1, 6, and 8 of the ICPPT, to the detriment of Ms. Bedoya. 120. The representatives agreed with the arguments of the Commission and added that the State had (i) made serious omissions in the early stages of the investigation; (ii) committed acts of discrimination and used stereotypes throughout the process; (iii) forced Ms. Bedoya to testify repeatedly and without justification under conditions that do not meet international standards; (iv) passed over the line of investigation related to the participation of State agents; and (v) unjustifiedly delayed investigation of the facts without justification. They added that, to date, "there has not been a single conviction that attributes responsibility to those who are in the end responsible for ordering 264 Articles 8(1), 24, 25, 5, and 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as articles 1, 6, and 8 of the ICPPT and Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 45