that is, the arrest of presumed members of the terrorist organization, Shining Path, responsible for preparing El Diario.” The State also indicated that “it has been proved that, from the very start, a representative of the Public Prosecution Service was present to certify the legality and non-arbitrary nature of the deprivation of liberty of [Ms. J.], as well as an adequate respect for [her] human rights.” In addition, the State asserted that the instant case did not form part of “a general pattern of cases of sexual abuse,” because “it took place in the context of the operations headed by the GEIN, which used specific methods that respected the rights of those arrested.” Furthermore, the State indicated that the context, according to which the forensic physicians acted in complicity with the perpetrators, was not applicable to this case, because “the forensic medical examination was supervised and validated by Dr. Nancy Elizabeth De la Cruz Chamilco” who, in her testimony, denied having received “pressure or interference in [her] decisions as an expert witness.” The State emphasized that other women detained during Operation Moyano did not show signs of having being victims of sexual abuse. It also stressed that the prosecutor from the Public Prosecution Service “has strongly denied that J. was blindfolded and threatened while she was being transferred from one place to another.” 312. Furthermore, the State considered that the “contradictions incurred in by the petitioner between the initial petition and the [motions and arguments brief] concerning [the alleged rape] undermine the credibility of her arguments and reveal manipulation in order to exaggerate the facts […], because it is improbable that a supposed act of rape […], with the psychological consequences that this involves, would be subsequently denied by the petitioner.” Likewise, it indicated that “in the face of this doubt, what is the State going to investigate, considering that the victim’s statement is a key factor in order to determine whether an act of sexual […] abuse occurred, and based on this to initiate the respective investigations.” In this regard, the State emphasized that “it is unclear whether, according to J. or the Commission, an insertion of this type [of the fingers in the vagina] occurred and the circumstances in which it occurred; and this is in addition to putting on record that J. did not denounce this situation before the competent domestic organs.” It also indicated that “every act of rape cannot be classified outright as an act of torture.” Furthermore, it affirmed that, on April 18, 1992, J. underwent a forensic medical examination, and the injuries encountered “were produced at the time of her arrest [when J. tried] to escape by the back door of the building.” C.2) Considerations of the Court 313. In order to analyze what happened to the presumed victim, the Court will take into account diverse indications that help determine what took place, in the following order: C.2.1) the context at the time of the events; C.2.2) the statements by Ms. J.; C.2.3) the forensic medicine examination; C.2.4) the testimony of the prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service, and C.2.5) the failure to investigate the facts described. 314. In addition, the Court notes that the case file includes a psychological report prepared by the Traumatic Stress Clinic which describes several of the alleged acts of ill-treatment suffered by J. during the initial arrest and her detention in the DINCOTE. However, the said report indicates that the ill-treatment described in it was extracted from a document provided by Mr. Curtis Doebbler, 428 who initially represented Ms. J., so that it constitutes third-hand information and, consequently, the Court will not take it into account for the determination of the events that occurred in the context of this case. Documents and testimony were also provided that indicate that Ms. J. suffers from chronic post-traumatic stress as a result of the experiences undergone by the presumed victim while she was detained in Peru. 429 Nevertheless, the Court notes that the information contained in 428 Cf. Report of the Traumatic Stress Clinic of November 28, 1996 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 7, folio 82). 429 Cf. Report of the Traumatic Stress Clinic of November 28, 1996 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 7, folio 86), Affidavit prepared by witness Martin Rademacher on May 8, 2013 (merits report, folio 1246), and affidavit prepared by Bent Sørensen and Inge Genefke of the Anti-Torture Support Foundation on December 31, 2007, and presented in the context of Ms. J.’s extradition proceeding (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, annex 58, folios 3180 and 3181). 91