to 353). Likewise, in cases in which sexual abuse is alleged, the lack of medical evidence does not take away from the truth of the presumed victim’s allegations. 475 334. Consequently, the Court finds that the information revealed by the medical examination does not contradict the versions given by Ms. J.; rather, to the contrary, it is consequent with her allegations. Furthermore, the fact that no other examinations were performed to verify the occurrence of the ill-treatment described can be attributed to the State and cannot be used to disprove what the presumed victim has indicated. C.2.4) The testimony of the prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service 335. The State based part of its defense with regard to the ill-treatment described by Ms. J. on the fact that, at the time of the arrest, the prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service, Magda Victoria Atto Mendives, was present to ensure the rights of Ms. J. (supra para. 311). During the public hearing Ms. Atto testified that: [She] entered first [in order] to ensure the legality of the action. Then the police personnel entered and there is always subjugation, efforts to evade this, efforts to flee, efforts to escape. Then, in [that] context, the police personnel have to […] subjugate, but without the intention, let’s say, to be violent; it’s an instinctive reaction. 476 336. In relation to the arrest of Ms. J., she indicated that the presumed victim “was never abused” during her transfer to the DINCOTE, and that she “always ensure[d] the integrity of the individuals, [and that Ms. J.] was never blindfolded.” She also assured that, “in all the actions that [she] took part in as deputy terrorism prosecutor, the integrity of the individual was always respected.” Regarding whether there was any type of sexual abuse or rape, she stated that: At no time, because, in the records, [the parties] have, let’s say, the privilege, […] to be able to report, through me, any anomalous situation that occurs and, as you will see, and I can ratify this, there was no situation of this type either. I was not informed; I was not advised [that she was being] subjugated, [or that she was being] abused, nothing at that time. 477 337. First, the Court notes that the witness is unclear as to whether or not any type of violence was used when conducting the search of the building and subsequent arrest of the presumed victim. On the one hand, Ms. Atto Mendives indicated that “there was no violence in this specific case”; then, when questioned in this regard, she clarified that “there is also repression, reaction; people try to fend off or attack.” The witness did not specify whether that reaction had occurred in this case, or what actions the police took to achieve the arrest; nor did she indicate that Ms. J. had tried to escape when she was arrested (supra para. 331). Second, the Court notes that the witness based her answer that Ms. J. had not undergone any sexual assault on the fact that the presumed victim had not told her so that it would appear in the record. The Court points out that the search record is not signed by Ms. J. and, according to the statement of the presumed victim, she “was Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; Türkan v. Turkey, no. 33086/04, § 43, 18 September 2008, and Korobov v. Ukraine, no. 39598/03, § 68, 21 July 2011. 475 Cf. Testimony of Patricia Viseur Sellers during the public hearing held in this case. See also, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Judgment of 2 September 1998, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, paras. 134 and 135; International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, The Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, Judgment of 10 December 1998, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, para. 271; International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, The Prosecutor v. Tadić, Judgment of the Appeals Chamber, 15 July 1999, Case No. IT-94-1-A, para. 65; International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, The Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic, Zdravko Mucic, Hazim Delic and Esad Landzo (“Celebici camp”), Judgment of the Appeals Chamber, 20 February 2001, Case No. IT-96-21, paras. 504 and 505. Similarly, Article 96 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda establish that, in cases of sexual assault “no corroboration of the victim’s testimony shall be required.” 476 Statement made by Magda Victoria Atto Mendives during the public hearing held in this case. 477 Statement made by Magda Victoria Atto Mendives during the public hearing held in this case. 99