100 obvious that some of the evidence that could have been collected in order to clarify the acts of violence of which Gladys Espinoza was a victim is no longer available owing to the passage of time. The Court also notes that the deficient way in which statements were taken and medical examinations performed in this case contributed to impunity, and that the application of gender stereotypes by the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice also resulted in the failure to investigate the facts. Lastly, the Court observes that, in this case, the State has not submitted information to confirm that it has provided Gladys Espinoza with the medical and psychological care required in cases of violence and rape (supra paras. 199, 257 and 262). 287. Consequently, the Court determines that the State has violated the rights recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, and also the obligations established in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. It also finds that the State failed to comply with the obligation to investigate sexual violence contained in Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará with regard to the incident that took place in the Yanamayo Prison and, as of June 4, 1996, date on which Peru ratified this treaty, with regard to the facts that occurred in 1993 in the DIVISE and the DINCOTE. 288. Furthermore, the Court determines that the stereotyped assessment of the evidence by the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, as a result of which an investigation into the reported facts was not ordered, constituted gender-based discrimination in access to justice and, therefore, constituted non-compliance by the State with the obligation contained in Article 1(1) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 8(1) and 25 and 2 thereof, and to Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the ICPPT as well as Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará. B.2. The investigation opened in 2012 289. The representatives argued that, during the investigation opened in 2012, the State has incurred in errors that violate Gladys Espinoza’s rights, including the failure to identify perpetrators and the absence of key activities to clarify the facts, 471 as well as the presumed revictimization of Gladys Espinoza owing to the supposed practice of an examination of sexual integrity approximately 20 years after the facts. For its part, the State affirmed that Gladys Espinoza was not subjected to a physical examination that included a gynecological examination in 2013. 290. In this regard, the Court reaffirms that the State is obliged to investigate the acts of torture and sexual violence perpetrated against Gladys Espinoza, ex officio and within a reasonable time, in order to identify, prosecute and punish, as appropriate, those responsible for the facts and thus avoid impunity. In this regard, the Court has verified that, on February 28, 2012, the Third Supranational Criminal Prosecutor of Lima was requested to investigate the incidents that occurred in 1993 and 1999 to the detriment of Gladys Espinoza and that, consequently, the Provincial Criminal Prosecutor had issued notes addressed to the DIRCRI, the Institute of Forensic Medicine, the Board of Prosecutors of the Judicial District of Puno, the 471 They indicated that, since the investigation started, “the only substantial measure implemented by the State has been to file a complaint against some of those supposedly responsible for the facts.” They also indicated that, “during the recently-opened investigation, testimony has not been received from witnesses and members of the victim’s family, such as Lily Cubas [sic] and Manuel Espinoza” and that “at the time this brief is submitted, the investigations have only been able to identify […] presumed perpetrators of the facts that took place in the DIVISE in 1993; however, regarding the facts that occurred in the DINCOTE, only one presumed perpetrator has been accused […]. Similarly, regarding the 1999 incident in the Yanamayo Prison, the investigations conducted in the domestic sphere have only permitted the identification of one presumed perpetrator.” They also indicated that, “considering that widespread violations were committed at the time of the facts [in] all the State institutions mentioned, the investigations should have been conducted taking into account other cases that had been reported,” and that “the investigation completely excludes the criminal responsibility of the medical, judicial and administrative personnel who committed additional violations by act and omission in this case.”