105 306. The State affirmed that, “at this time, a domestic criminal investigation is underway relating to the investigation and punishment of those responsible for the presumed torture and rape of Gladys Carol Espinoza.” Moreover, it indicated that “it will be for the domestic authorities […] to decide […] the facts concerning the offense of torture and the application of this offense at the time, or with regard to the statute of limitations.” However, the Public Prosecution Service, in a decision of March 31, 2014, declared that the acts of torture and sexual violence against Gladys Espinoza constituted gross human rights violations and, therefore, were not subject to the statute of limitations. In addition, the State affirmed that the Commission had exceeded its authority when recommending that the responsibility of members of the Judiciary and of the Public Prosecution Service be investigated in relation to these facts, because “[t]he judges who compose the Judiciary are unable to make technical and specialized assessments of a medical and psychological nature, […] so that, in these cases, they have recourse to experts, who are specialists in those areas. [Also,] in this case, the National Terrorism Chamber complied with its duty by, at the request of the presumed victim, offering her a means of proof consisting in the execution of a medical forensic appraisal to determine whether she had been a victim of torture, and a psychological appraisal to determine her mental health […].” 307. In this Judgment, the Court has declared, inter alia, that, from 1993 to 2012, the State failed to comply with its obligation to investigate the acts of torture suffered by Gladys Espinoza, which included rape and other forms of sexual violence. This was due to the unjustified delay of approximately 19 years in relation to the acts that occurred at the time of her arrest and also on the premises of the DIVISE and the DINCOTE in 1993, and of approximately 13 years in relation to the incident that occurred in the Yanamayo Prison in 1999. The Court has also determined that the stereotyped assessment of the evidence by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice that led it to declare that Ms. Espinoza had not been a victim of torture and, therefore, not to order an investigation into the facts denounced, constituted gender-based discrimination in access to justice (supra paras. 285 to 288). 308. Therefore, the Court establishes that the State must, within a reasonable time, open, advance, guide, continue and conclude, as applicable and with the greatest diligence, the pertinent criminal investigations and proceedings, in order to identify, prosecute and punish, as appropriate, those responsible for the gross violations of the personal integrity of Gladys Espinoza. The investigation and criminal proceedings must be, as applicable, for the acts of torture, sexual violence and rape of which Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles was a victim on her arrest on April 17, 1993, during the time she remained on the premises of the DIVISE and the DINCOTE in April and May 1993, and also during the incident that took place on August 5, 1999, in the Yanamayo Maximum Security Prison, in Puno, based on the criteria described for investigating this type of case (supra paras. 238 to 242, 248, 249, 251, 252, 255, 256, 258, 260 and 266). Thus, the State must remove all obstacles, de facto and de jure, that maintain total impunity in this case. Due diligence in the investigation signifies that all the pertinent State authorities are obliged to collaborate in the collection of evidence and must therefore provide the judge, prosecutor or other judicial authority with all the information requested, and abstain from acts that entail the obstruction of the investigative procedure. 309. As it has established on other occasions relating to this type of case, 483 both the respective investigation and the criminal proceedings should include a gender perspective, undertake specific lines of investigation with regard to the sexual violence in order to avoid omissions in the collection of evidence, and provide the victim with information on any progress in the investigation and criminal proceedings pursuant to domestic law and, as appropriate, adequate participation at all stages of the investigation and trial. In addition, the investigation 483 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 455, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 251.