236. The Commission will now analyze whether the investigation and criminal proceeding carried out domestically resulting in a conviction for the crimes of illegitimate deprivation of liberty and serious personal injury met the standards set forth in this section. The Commission recalls that it is not responsible for determining the criminal responsibility resulting from the facts of this case, for which reason its analysis will focus on the State’s actions and omissions in the framework of the investigation and the criminal process in light of its international obligations on access to justice. 2.2. Analysis of the investigation and criminal process carried out domestically 2.2.1. On the duty to investigate with due diligence Omissions in initial identification and steps taken given that the case was one of violence against a woman, including sexual violence 237. The Commission observes that from Linda Loaiza López’s first contact with State authorities, she expressed that she had been the victim of violence, including sexual violence. Likewise, although she herself would not have stated as much, the nature of her injuries were enough for the corresponding authorities to be able to identify the case as a case of violence against women. Therefore, the reinforced duties to investigate derived from the American Convention and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará would be activated.332 Despite this, the Commission observes that in the moments and days immediately following Linda Loaiza López’s rescue, these duties were not fulfilled. 238. For example, the Commission highlights that the reports on the rescue and the intake forms at the public hospital where she was taken make no mention that Linda Loaiza López had stated—and her wounds themselves and evidence collected at the scene of the rescue showed—that she was the victim of sexual violence. 239. The Commission also observes that the superficiality of the initial examinations of Linda Loaiza López is clear from the fact that in her medical record from her admission to the hospital indicates that her gynecological exam found that her “genitals show[ed] no sign of injury [...] nonpalpable adnexal tumors. Tactile rectal exam, no evidence of bleeding or tumors.” In contrast with this finding, the forensic medical examination performed days later found “full and healed tearing extending to the adjacent vulval and vaginal mucosa” and “old deflowering and signs of genital trauma caused more than eight days previously.” This inconsistency reveals that no order was immediately given to make a “meticulous record” of the assault333 taking into account the duty to establish whether gender-based violence had occurred.334 240. Without prejudice to the previous paragraph on the content of the findings of the forensic medical exams, the Commission highlights that it was performed only eight days after Linda Loaiza López’s rescue and that it had to be requested formally by the Office of the Public Prosecutor from the Medical Forensic Unit of the Technical Judicial Police Force. This delay has not been justified by the State, and pursuant to the standards outlined, constitutes a failure to comply with the duty to investigate with due diligence in these types of cases. 332 Likewise, see: Inter-American Court. Case of Véliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 178. 333 See: United Nations, Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Istanbul Protocol, December 2001. 218. 334 The IACHR also points to the testimony of Dr. José Alfredo Saldeño, who stated that the gynecological exam at the time of admission to the University Hospital of Caracas found no injuries in the genital area but that she was also given laboratory tests, including a pregnancy test, “given the situation”. See: Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Case No. 20.-253. November 5, 2004, Testimony of the Dr. José Alfredo Saldeño. pg. 174. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009.