and the Assistant Prosecutor, with the Disciplinary Committee of the Supreme Court of Justice (on November 8, 2002). 22. Lastly, the petitioner states that justice administration officials in Nicaragua are highly prejudiced against women and have little knowledge of the laws protecting children and women. She also, alleges that there are no specialists to treat rape victims and that jury members do not receive training in this area. She states that there is impunity in the cases of most crimes of sexual violence against minors in Nicaragua. B. Position of the State 23. The State denies the allegations submitted by the petitioner regarding the irregularities in the proceedings and the denial of justice. It also indicates that the petitioner did not provide convincing and objective evidence of the alleged violation of the human rights of the child V.R.P. With regard to the allegations of procedural delay, the State indicates that the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time established a very slow, written, investigate procedure, wherein the operative power of the parties was very limited, this accounting for the delay in the judgment of the Collegiate Court. 24. The State also indicates that the right to personal integrity of the child V.R.P. was not violated by the authorities because “the social reality is that any victim of a sexual crime, in undertaking proceedings against his or her aggressor, is revictimized,” since “such individuals have experienced a traumatic situation with profound psychological sequelae and, in undertaking criminal proceedings, the victim must undergo a series of situations that contribute to augmenting his or her suffering and the sequelae of any sex crime.”20 In that connection, it notes that in cases such as this, it is essential to establish that rape occurred, and therefore “there is no deliberate violation of any human right when the victim is subjected to the expert examination required to prosecute the accused and necessary for the defense of rights, in this case, of the minor child [V.R.P.].”21 25. The State indicates that H.R.A., accused of rape, was prosecuted in accordance with the legal procedure. In that connection, it states that the petitioner’s complaint and the child’s statement were received, 21 affidavits were taken, among them the testimony of the doctors who treated the child prior to the complaint, a warrant was 20 Note from the State of June 29, 2007, MRE/DGO/1570/06/07. 21 Note from the State of February 14, 2005, MRE/DM-DGOI/218/02/05. 8