jurisdiction,” and also “to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” 215 It is further reinforced by Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, which obligates the State to exercise due diligence and enact the necessary regulatory framework to investigate and punish violence against women. 216 Article 7(b) of the Convention specifically requires States parties to act with due diligence to prevent, punish, and eradicate violence against women. This duty is activated from the moment the State becomes aware of the existence of an alleged act, such as rape. 217 112. Thus, it is particularly important that the investigating authorities conduct the investigation with determination and effectiveness, bearing in mind society’s duty to reject violence against women and the State’s obligations to eradicate it and to provide victims with the confidence that State institutions will protect them. 218 In addition, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women has maintained that States have an obligation to respond with due diligence to acts of sexual violence against women. 219 113. In this context, the Commission has pointed out that States must have an adequate legal framework of protection, effective means for its implementation, and prevention policies and practices that allow them to respond effectively to complaints of sexual violence. 220 The Inter-American Court emphasized that, in cases of sexual violence, the investigation should try, whenever possible, to avoid re-victimization or the reliving of the profound traumatic experience each time the victim remembers or testifies about what happened. 221 114. The Court has also specified that a criminal investigation into sexual violence: i) the victim’s statement should be taken in a safe and comfortable environment, providing privacy and trust; ii) the victim’s statement should be recorded to avoid or limit the need for repetition; iii) the victim should be provided with medical, health care and psychological treatment, both on an emergency basis, and continuously if required, through an assistance protocol designed to lessen the consequences of rape; iv) a complete and detailed medical and psychological examination should be conducted immediately by suitable trained personnel, of the sex preferred by the victim insofar as this is possible, and the victim should be informed that she may be accompanied by a trusted person if she so wishes; v) the investigative tasks should be coordinated and documented and the evidence handled with care, taking sufficient samples and performing all possible tests to determine the perpetrator of the act, and obtaining other evidence such as the victim’s clothing, immediate examination of the crime scene and guaranteeing the proper chain of custody of the evidence, and vi) access to free legal assistance at all stages of the proceedings should be provided for the victim. 222 115. According to the World Health Organization, in cases of alleged rape, gynecological examination should be performed as soon as possible. 223 The Court has indicated that this expert examination must be conducted, if it is considered appropriate, and with the prior and informed consent of the alleged victim, during the first 72 hours following the alleged act, based on a specific protocol for the care of victims of 215 I/A Court H.R. Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C, No. 275, Para. 341. 216 I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C, No. 205. Para. 287. I/A Court H.R., Case of Gutiérrez Hernández et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2017. Series C, No. 339. Para. 147. 217 I/A Court H.R. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010, Series C, No. 216, para. 103. 218 I/A Court H.R. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010, Series C, No. 216, para. 177. 219 United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Sixty-second session. Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Yakin Ertürk. Integration of the human rights of women and the gender perspective: violence against women. The due diligence standard as a tool for the elimination of violence against women. E/CN.4/2006/61, 20 January 2006. Para. 29. 220 IACHR, Report 170/11, Case 12.578. María Isabel Véliz Franco et al. Merits. Guatemala, November 3, 2011, para. 84. 221 I/A Court H.R. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010, Series C, No. 216, para. 180. 222 I/A Court H.R. Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C, No. 289, para. 242; and I/A Court H.R. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010 Series C, No. 216, para. 178. 223 World Health Organization, Guidelines for medico-legal care for victims of sexual violence. Geneva, 2003, pp. 18, 43; 58. 29