96 medical examinations performed on Gladys Espinoza to justify its decision, but rather based itself only on her failure to incriminate herself. The Court also notes that the National Terrorism Chamber did not rule on the existence or inexistence of torture; however, as indicated (supra para. 266), it did not order an investigation into the said facts. 275. Meanwhile, the ruling issued by the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court on November 24, 2004, corresponding to the “application for a declaration of nullity filed by [Gladys Espinoza] against the guilty verdict [of March 1, 2004]; by the senior prosecutor with regard to the quantum of the sentence, and by the Attorney General’s Office with regard to the amount of the civil reparation,” asserted that “during the oral trial, the medical experts have indicated that the injuries to Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles are not compatible with torture, and it should be added that the psychological appraisal concluded that the person appraised is someone who is manipulative in order to obtain advantages.” Thus, the Chamber considered that “there are no grounds to declare the nullity of the judgment […] convicting Gladys Carol Espinoza […] of the crime against public peace-terrorism.” 458 In this regard, in the said judgment, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the allegation of the possible existence of “torture that [Gladys Espinoza] denounced she was a victim of on police premises,” based, exclusively, on the indications of the medical experts during the oral trial (supra para. 270), and specifically stated that Gladys Espinoza is a person who is manipulative in order to obtain advantages. The Criminal Chamber did not assess any other evidence in the case file in order to reach this conclusion, and interpreted the assessments of the expert witnesses during the oral hearing in a way that was designed to invalidate her credibility as a witness. However, the Court recalls, in particular, that two of the three medical experts who testified before the National Terrorism Chamber during the said public hearing neither denied nor affirmed the existence of acts of torture and sexual violence against Gladys Espinoza (supra para. 262). Thus, this selective way of assessing the expert opinions provided during the oral hearing invalidated the content of Gladys Espinoza’s statements, and this is a matter of particular concern given the special significance of the statements of a presumed victim of sexual violence (supra para. 150). 276. It is pertinent to take into account that, when analyzing psychological reports 003821-V and 003737-2004-PSC of February 2004 mentioned supra, the psychologist Carmen Wurst, in the psychological appraisal made of Ms. Espinoza in 2008, stated that “[n]either of the said appraisals has taken into account that this was a case of torture and rape. The conclusions make no mention of the relationship that existed between the traumatic event and the aftereffects found […]. The conclusions emitted only corroborate and substantiate the psychological harm produced by the torture. [Moreover, these appraisals] have been used in a pejorative manner, when referring to reactions that could be expected […]. The diagnosis tries to demonstrate that, owing to her histrionic traits, the patient has invented the episode of torture, which is absolutely improbable and incorrect, because these reactions and clinical symptoms are normal and only to be expected and, to the contrary, confirm the aftereffects of torture according to the Istanbul Protocol.” 459 277. Furthermore, the Court recalls that a pattern of torture and of sexual violence existed in Peru, implemented in a discriminatory manner against women in the context of investigations into terrorism and treason at the time of the facts (supra paras. 67 and 229). In addition, as previously indicated, at the time the Criminal Chamber’s judgment was delivered, in cases of sexual violence, the Peruvian courts accorded too much significance to the medical evidence, 458 Final Judgment No. 1252-2004 of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of November 24, 2004 (evidence file, folio 6154). 459 Report on the psychological and psychiatric appraisals made by Carmen Wurst de Landázuri on October 5, 2008 (evidence file, folios 1544 to 1555).