precedent, 157 the Case of Fernández Ortega et al. Mexico (2010) discussed the sexual rape of the victim, a 25-year-old indigenous woman, in the context of the invasion of her home by about eleven armed soldiers, without the State having completed the investigation and prosecution of those responsible. When examining the evidence at its disposal to evaluate the case - specifically, the evidence that sexual violence had occurred -, the Court relied on the aforementioned cases MC vs. Bulgaria of the ECHR and Kunarac, Kovac and Vukovic of the ICTY to address the absence of evidence of physical resistance: With regard to the medical examinations, it should be emphasized that the alleged victim only received medical assistance on one occasion after reporting the facts, from a general practitioner, who performed a physical and gynecological examination from which she determined that “there was no evidence of violence”. In this regard, the Court observes that the medical certificate concurs with the different statements made by Ms. Fernández Ortega, because, in none of them, the alleged victim says that she opposed physical resistance to the attack. In this regard, the Court notes that international jurisprudence has established that the use of force cannot be considered an essential element to punish non-consensual sexual acts, and that evidence of the existence of physical resistance to such acts cannot be required; rather it is sufficient that there are coercive elements in the conduct. In this case, it is established that the act was committed in a situation of extreme coercion, aggravated by the fact that it occurred in a context of power subjectification by three armed soldiers. 158 79. The same standard was recommended by the Commission, which already stated that “in order to properly investigate, prosecute and punish cases of sexual violence, States must consider both the body of evidence and the context in which the sexual assault occurred, and not confine themselves to direct evidence of physical resistance on the part of the victim.” 159 80. Thus, because (i) the traditional model for classifying sexual crimes, adopted by Bolivia, is based on obsolete premises and does not consider all forms of rape; (ii) the resistance requirement does not take into account situations in which this is not the response of the victim, who may be paralyzed by psychological avoidance or fear of further injury; (iii) resistance-focused definitions of rape perpetuate the misperception that it is the victim's responsibility to protect herself and that if she does not do so it is because she voluntarily participates in the sexual act; and (iv) requiring genuine and voluntary consent to the sexual act and considering the coercive circumstances that invalidate any consent is the most appropriate standard under International Human Rights Law to protect victims of rape, it is concluded that Bolivia must eliminate violence and intimidation requirements of Article 308 of its Criminal Code as a guarantee of non-repetition, truly incorporating a parameter focused on the absence of consent. 160 c. The change of the classification of “rape” will only be effective if the classification of “statutory rape” is eliminated from the Bolivian legal system. ECHR. M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, 2003. Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Serie C No. 215, para. 115. 159 Cf. ICHR, Access to justice for women victims of sexual violence de in Mesoamerica, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 63 (2011), para. 97. 160 The same conclusion was offered by Dr. Dubravka Šimonović in expert witness testimony. Cf. Expert testimony by Dubravka Šimonović (evidence file, fl. 11495). 157 158 27