91. In 2001, when the initial events in this case occurred, Article 310 had already been significantly modified, with the aggravating circumstance of incest increasing the penalty by five years if the perpetrator was "an ancestor, descendant or relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or second of affinity". Furthermore, the Law for the Protection of Victims of Crimes Against Sexual Freedom, of October 29, 1999, added an aggravating circumstance for situations in which “the perpetrator was in charge of the education or custody of the victim, or if the victim was in situation of dependency or authority”, a circumstance that the State considered, in its answering brief, as another classification of incest. Since then, although several laws have modified the aggravating circumstances of sexual crimes (the last modification having been made in 2019 through Law No. 1173), the section that traditionally refers to incest has remained practically unchanged. 171 Currently, Article 310, section "o" has the following wording: Article 310. (AGGRAVATING FACTORS). The penalty will be aggravated in the cases of the previous crimes, with five (5) years, when: (...) o) The author was an ancestor, descendant or relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or second degree of affinity; (…) 92. The representatives questioned this approach of the Bolivian legal system, pointing out that incest should not be a mere aggravating circumstance, but rather classified as autonomous, to give visibility to the "culture of incest" existing in the country and allow the formulation of specific strategies for prevention. 172 Based on the mobilization of data from international organizations and NGOs, they pointed out that incest is a common and taboo fact in Bolivia, remaining hidden and secret due to the reinforcement of the culture of silence regarding sexual violence that occurs in the family environment. 173 When specifying their allegation about the existence of a "culture of incest" in Bolivia, the representatives stated: Incestuous rape culture is particularly dangerous. This culture is based on a set of beliefs, norms, values and social constructions that make children and adolescents experience and accept as normal the supposed right of adult men to be owners of life, feelings, thoughts, the decisions and bodies of children and adolescents, especially if they are female. This culture of incest in families is driven by ingrained notions of loyalty and respect for authority, keeping and protecting family secrets, and toxic and polarizing gender stereotypes. 174 93. For these reasons, they also stated that a separate classification for incest is essential to shed light on this systemic and structural problem. They further affirm that laws can be important accelerators of social change, transforming cultural practices and contributing to the effective protection of children against this serious form of violence. 175 Thus, the representatives requested, as a reparatory measure, the transformation of the aggravating circumstance "o" of Article 310 of the Penal Code into an autonomous classification that includes incestuous rape. The State did not address this argument in its considerations. 171 However, section "g" was added to Article 310, which the State understands also refers to incest: “The perpetrator is in charge of the education or custody of the victim, or if the victim is in a situation of dependency with respect to the perpetrator or under their authority.” 172 Cf. Brief of Pleadings, Motions and Evidence of November 20, 2020, p.288-90. 173 Ibid. 174 Ibid., p. 2. 175 Ibid., p. 288-90. 31