C.2.3) The forensic medicine examination 327. On April 18, 1992, five days after Ms. J.’s initial arrest, she underwent a medical examination. The State argued that the injuries found during the examination were produced when she tried to escape from the building on Las Esmeraldas Street (supra para. 312). The representative indicated that the injuries revealed by the examination are the result of the illtreatment that Ms. J. alleges she suffered (supra paras. 82, 83, 93, 322 and 325). The Court will therefore proceed to assess the said medical examination as a possible indication of what happened. 328. According to the testimony of Nancy Elizabeth De la Cruz Chamilco, this type of medical 454 During the examination of Ms. J., injuries were examination took an average of five minutes. found that were “visible, but not relevant” on the “posterior thorax and on her lower limbs.” 455 The Court notes that the report does not record whether Ms. J. was asked how these injuries had occurred. In this regard, the Court considers that one of the purposes of the medical examinations performed when a person enters a detention or internment facility is to ensure the personal integrity of the person deprived of liberty and to verify complaints of possible ill-treatment and torture. 456 Thus, the medical report must include not only the injuries that are found, but also detailed information on the explanation given by the patients about how these injuries occurred, as well as the opinion of the doctor on whether the injuries are consequent with this explanation. 457 In addition, the medical examination must be performed in conditions where the persons deprived of liberty feel as comfortable as possible so that, if they so wish, they can describe any ill-treatment received. In this regard, it is essential that the medical examination be performed by suitable, trained personnel of the sex preferred by the victim, insofar as possible. 458 In the instant case, the medical examination was performed by two male forensic physicians (supra para. 93). The State has presented no evidence as to whether Ms. J. had been offered the possibility of a woman being present or about whether factors existed that prevented the State from ensuring the presence of a woman during the examination. However, the Court notes the testimony of Ms. De la Cruz Chamilco, who, when questioned about the duration of the examination performed on Ms. J., indicated that, “at times women detainees are reluctant to undergo the examinations, because they have to take their clothes off, and when those who examine them are male, [the examination] usually exceeds the five-minute average.” 459 This response from the person who was the Director General of the General Directorate of Forensic Medicine of Lima of the Peruvian Institute of Forensic 454 Affidavit prepared by witness Nancy Elizabeth De la Cruz Chamilco on May 8, 2013 (merits report, folio 1070). 455 Cf. Affidavit prepared by witness Nancy Elizabeth De la Cruz Chamilco on May 8, 2013 (merits report, folio 1068). 456 See, for example, IACHR, Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, Principle IX (3), as well as ECHR, Türkan v. Turkey, no. 33086/04, § 42, 18 September 2008; Salmanoğlu and Polattaş v. Turkey, no. 15828/03, § 79, 17 March 2009, and Korobov v. Ukraine, no. 39598/03, § 70, 21 July 2011. In addition, the Bangkok Rules establish that: “Rule 7.1. If the existence of sexual abuse or other forms of violence before or during detention is diagnosed, the woman prisoner shall be informed of her right to seek recourse from judicial authorities. The woman prisoner should be fully informed of the procedures and steps involved. If the woman prisoner agrees to take legal action, appropriate staff shall be informed and immediately refer the case to the competent authority for investigation. Prison authorities shall help such women to access legal assistance. 2. Whether or not the woman chooses to take legal action, prison authorities shall endeavour to ensure that she has immediate access to specialized psychological support or counselling. 3. Specific measures shall be developed to avoid any form of retaliation against those making such reports or taking legal action. United Nations, General Assembly resolution 65/229, United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules), 16 March 2011, A/RES/65/229, Rule 7 (hereinafter “Bangkok Rules”). 457 Cf. ECHR, Akkoç v. Turkey, nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, § 118, ECHR 2000-X; Salmanoğlu and Polattaş v. Turkey, no. 15828/03, § 80, 17 March 2009, and Istanbul Protocol, para. 187. 458 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 194, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 178. See also, Istanbul Protocol, para. 154, and Bangkok Rules, Rule 10.2. 459 Affidavit prepared by witness Nancy Elizabeth De la Cruz Chamilco on May 8, 2013 (merits report, folio 1070). 96