22 64. The CVR determined that, in addition to the acts of sexual violence that were committed, there were cases that clearly revealed the State agents’ exercise of power over the population and especially over women, and that these cases reaffirm the hypothesis of “the existence of a generalized context of sexual violence, inserted in a broad context of discrimination against women, who are considered vulnerable and whose body is used by the perpetrator without any apparent reason or strict relationship to the internal armed conflict.” 65. Furthermore, regarding sexual violence in State establishments, it indicated that the testimonies received referred to different forms of sexual violence; namely, sexual abuse, sexual blackmail, sexual harassment or inappropriate touching, as well as forced nudity, insults, threats of rape with objects, penetration by the male organ and, in some cases, introduction of objects into the vagina and the anus. Similarly, it referred to testimonies that gave accounts of collective and repeated rapes against a single woman, and electric shocks to the breasts and genitals. According to the CVR, the sexual violence began immediately after the arrest, as well as during the transfer between the different State entities. In this regard, it indicated that women who were detained “were subjected to improper touching by anyone who came near them,” and “sexual abuse, fondling [and] threats of rape” were usual. The CVR explained that, in cases of detention by the Police Forces, the faces of the women were covered with their clothes so that they could not identify their captors and, in the places of detention, they were blindfolded and placed against the wall so that they could not see their assailants. Based on numerous testimonies received, the CVR referred, in particular, to the Lima headquarters of the DINCOTE, which had been identified “as a place in which sexual violence occurred repeatedly.” According to the testimonies, “[t]he ill-treatment began at the time of the arrest, during which the perpetrators identified themselves as members of the DINCOTE [… and] continued during the transfer to those headquarters.” In addition, the CVR reported that the sexual violence took place, “in addition to in the DINCOTE offices, on the beach and at night.” 66. Nevertheless, the CVR acknowledged that “the cases in which a woman [was] subjected to any of these practices were not reported” and that “the domestic criminal laws did not help a woman victim of sexual violence to denounce these facts, owing to the cumbersome procedures involved, as well as the victim’s humiliation and shame.” The CVR also concluded that the sexual violence was surrounded by a context of impunity, both when the acts occurred, and when the victims decided to accuse their attackers. Specifically, it indicated that, at the time of the facts “the prosecutors required by law to determine the existence of abuses and to denounce them to the courts disregarded the complaints of detainees and even signed their statements without having been present when they were made, so that they were ‘unable to guarantee the physical and mental integrity of the detainee.’” While, “[i]n the cases in which they were present, many deponents testified before the [CVR] that the prosecutor, instead of acting as the protector of their rights, was an authority who went unnoticed and, in many cases, ratified those illegal practices.” Moreover, at the time of the arrest, “the victims or their family members were ordered to sign the records.” The CVR also referred to “numerous testimonies that reveal the complicity of the forensic doctors who attended the women after they had been victims of sexual violence” and underlined: the questionable role of some forensic doctors. Most of the victims stated that the forensic examinations performed by these medical professionals were not rigorous; in other words, they carried out medical examinations as a mere formality […]. The professional misconduct of forensic doctors has particularly serious consequences in cases of sexual violence, because they condemn the crime to impunity. A.5 Conclusions 67. Based on the different reports mentioned above and, in particular, the report of the CVR, the Court concludes that, over the period from 1980 to 2000: