65. On October 21, 2008, the Second Provincial Corporate Criminal Prosecution Service requested the dismissal of the proceedings against the three police officers for the offenses of aggravated rape and abuse of authority to the detriment of Azul Rojas Marín.85 66. On January 9, 2009, the Ascope First Preliminary Investigation Court “declared the request of the Public Prosecution Service was substantiated” and “dismissed the proceedings for both offenses against the three accused,” ordering that the case be closed. 86 The court indicated that the presumed victim’s version was not credible because one of the accused was an important witness in the criminal proceedings underway against one of her brothers. It also indicated that the aggrieved party had varied her statement about the facts, and underscored that the she had stated that she had continued her usual work on February 25, “activities for which she had to employ significant physical force and use motor-cycle taxis,” and she could not have done this if she had been as sore as she described after the supposed sexual abuse. 87 The court also indicated that “the facts occurred in the early morning hours of February [25 … and] the forensic medical examination of the aggrieved party and [the examination of the clothing were performed on February 29], in other words almost four days after the events. This lack of immediacy in performing the said expert examinations gives rise to a reasonable doubt that [the injuries found] were caused on the day of the incident and by the accused, and it could be presumed that they occurred after the day of the incident.”88 67. On January 22, 2009, Ms. Rojas Marín filed a remedy of appeal against this decision. 89 On January 23, 2009, the Ascope First Preliminary Investigation Court unhesitatingly declared this inadmissible as being time-barred.90 D. The complaint filed against the Ascope Prosecution Service 68. In parallel to the investigation process, Ms. Rojas Marín filed a complaint with the Superior Prosecutor, Head of the Decentralized Office of Internal Control of La Libertad and Santa against the Prosecutor and Deputy Prosecutor of the province of Ascope in charge of the preliminary investigation into the acts of sexual violence perpetrated against her. 91 Ms. Rojas Marín alleged that the said prosecutors had committed the offenses of “abuse of authority, coercion [and] delay in the administration of justice.”92 Among other arguments, she alleged that this was because “the Prosecutor […], abusing of her position, prevented the petitioner from undergoing [the] forensic medical examination on [February 28, 2008,] by Cf. Request for dismissal by the Second Provincial Corporate Criminal Prosecution Service of Ascope of October 21, 2008 (evidence file, folio 83). 85 Cf. Order to dismiss the proceedings dated January 9, 2009, issued by the Ascope First Preliminary Investigation Court (evidence file, folios 2954 to 2969). 86 Cf. Order to dismiss the proceedings dated January 9, 2009, issued by the Ascope First Preliminary Investigation Court (evidence file, folio 2960). 87 Cf. Order to dismiss the proceedings dated January 9, 2009, issued by the Ascope First Preliminary Investigation Court (evidence file, folio 2962). 88 89 Cf. Remedy of appeal filed by Azul Rojas Marín on January 22, 2009 (evidence file, folios 154 to 159). Cf. Decision of the Ascope First Preliminary Investigation Court of January 23, 2009 (evidence file, folios 3003 and 3004). 90 Cf. Complaint filed by Azul Rojas Marín before the Superior Prosecutor, Head of the Decentralized Office of Internal Control of La Libertad on March 28, 2008 (evidence file, folios 2248 to 2254). 91 Cf. Complaint filed by Azul Rojas Marín before the Superior Prosecutor, Head of the Decentralized Office of Internal Control of La Libertad on March 28, 2008 (evidence file, folio 2248). 92 19