alone with a woman, who was a prospective tenant and who J. had not known previously. 110 She also stated that, when they were leaving the building: [She sensed] that someone was trying to open the backdoor that opened onto Las Esmeraldas Street, [and] immediately asked what was happening; from outside, they answered ‘I’m the owner, open up,” and [she] opened the window to see what was happening and answered that [she] was the owner and that there had been a mistake; [she] had not finished her sentence when an arm broke the window panes, took [her] by the hair, pointed a gun at [her], and about 15 people entered dressed in civilian clothing, all of them armed; and as [she] had been injured by the glass that had fallen on her back, they threw [her] on the floor and immediately tied [her] hands behind [her] back, and blindfolded [her]; they hit [her] and took [her] to the back of the premises, threatening and insulting [her]. When they tied [her] up, one of the men, who was dark-skinned and wore a yellow cap, hit [her] legs, touched her all over [her] body – patting [her] down according to him – and stole a gold bracelet [and] a gold ring. 111 83. Ms. J. also stated before the police that: [A]t the time of the arrest, [she] was beaten, sexually abused, in other words, touched all over, and a gold ring in the form of a horseshoe and a gold bracelet had been taken from her by force. 112 84. Also, according to the presumed victim, the representative of the Public Prosecution Service “was not present at the time of the police raid, [but arrived] later,” so that “there was no lawyer who could certify what was supposedly found in the offices.” 113 J. also stated that “they covered [her] eyes the whole time, therefore [… she] did not see everything they could have planted in that place to implicate her in subversion.” 114 According to Ms. J., when the prosecutor arrived, she indicated that there was nothing on the premises. 115 Regarding the seized objects, Ms. J. indicated that she “did not recognize most of the items, except [her] personal documents and the business cards of Marc de Beaufort and of Yezid Campos.” 116 85. The Court notes that, in the record of the inspection made of the building on Las Esmeraldas Street, the Public Prosecution Service certified that, when the building was searched, “there were only two girls.” Also, the said record indicated that, when the inspection was carried out, “everything was as it was found on the day of the judicial inspection, [except] that the glass on the door had been changed because it had been broken” 117 110 Cf. Statement of Ms. J. of April 21, 1992 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 31, folio 3669), and preliminary statement of June 10, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 41, folios 3697 and 3698). 111 Preliminary statement of June 10, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 41, folios 3698 and 3699). 112 Statement of Ms. J. of April 21, 1992 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 31, folio 3671). In the same statement, Ms. J. indicated that when they “were going to leave, [she] heard a knock on the door and went to see and they told [her] to open up because they were the owners of the house and [she] opened the door, […] they broke the windows, they took [her] by the hair and they took [her] to the back of the building; they blindfolded [her], and they put [her] against the wall.” Cf. Statement of Ms. J. of April 21, 1992 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 31, folio 3669). 113 In this regard, Ms. J. stated on June 19, 1992, that the prosecutor had arrived an hour and a half later, while on August 3, 1992, she stated that the prosecutor had arrived from two hours and a half to three hours later. Cf. Preliminary statement of June 19, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the State’s brief of June 24, 2013, annex 17, folio 4741), and preliminary statement of August 3, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the State’s brief of June 24, 2013, annex 18, folio 4749). See also, preliminary statement of June 15, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 42, folio 3704) 114 Preliminary statement of June 15, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 42, folio 3704). 115 Cf. Preliminary statement of August 3, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the State’s brief of June 24, 2013, annex 18, folio 4749). 116 Preliminary statement of June 10, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 41, folio 3699). 117 Inspection on August 11, 1992 (file of annexes to the brief of August 14, 2013, folio 5527). 27