174. As regards the duty to investigate with a gender perspective, free from stereotypes and discriminatory prejudices, it is worth highlighting several stigmatizing and stereotypical resolutions issued by the authorities, including: a) the Government Prosecuting Attorney, when requesting that the Court on duty order the arrest of the Vice Principal, she asserted that it was evident that "he had had a sentimental relationship with Paola, that she had got pregnant, and for that reason had decided to take her own life"; b) in his preliminary report of March 3, 2003, the Provincial Chief of the Judicial Police concluded "that teacher Bolívar Espín Zurita, the Vice-Principal of the Martínez Serrano school, had maintained sentimental relations with third-grade student Ms. Paola del Rosario Guzmán Albarracín” 200; c) the same Provincial Chief, in his second report, concluded that "there is no conclusive proof that the Vice Principal responded to the aforementioned "crush" (that is to say, he may or may not have)... "and as a recommendation," he suggested transferring the Vice Principal to another school, "for his own safety"; d) the Superior Court of Justice, in confirming the order summonsing Bolívar Espín to face trial, asserted that "it is obvious that the criminal acts of which he is accused do not apply to this case [...] Bolívar did not pursue Paola Guzmán; rather she courted his favors as a teacher [...] which was the beginning of the seduction, as amply evidenced in Paola's handwritten letters [...]"; based on which he amended the sexual harassment crime being investigated to [...] the offense of aggravated statutory rape. 175. Finally, the Commission points out that the prescription of the criminal action was due mainly to the lack of diligence in the part of the judicial authorities; especially, the blatant inability to find Mr. Espín,, who was supposedly a fugitive from justice but who nevertheless played an active part in all three proceedings through his attorney. Since February 2003, when Mr. Spin’s arrested was first ordered in the criminal proceedings, the State was duty-bound to have taken serious and concrete steps to ascertain his whereabouts. 176. In addition, the Commission stresses that on October 5, 2005, the Fifth Criminal Court judge ordered the proceedings to be suspended "until he [Bolívar Espín] appeared in court or is arrested." The Commission considers that since the proceedings had been suspended, the statute of limitations should not have run, above all given that the proceedings were totally halted for three years. In short, the Commission considers that Mr. Espín benefited from a prescription that resulted from lack of due diligence on the part of the authorities. 177. As the Commission has already pointed out, the purpose of the statute of limitations is to guarantee legal certainty and impose temporal restrictions on the punitive power of the State. However, if a State fails to take diligent steps to establish the whereabouts of a fugitive from justice in cases involving human rights violations that should be pursued ex officio and then declares in that fugitive's favor that the case against him has prescribed, invoking that statute becomes a factor favoring impunity that is attributable to the State. The Commission also underscores the fact that in several countries the statute of limitations is interrupted when an accused flees justice, to the extent that said flight makes criminal prosecution impossible.201 178. In addition, the Commission considers that prescription times should be directly proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes being investigated. In the instant case, dealing with sexual violence against a woman and girl that culminated in her death, the Commission considers that a five-year prescription period does not match the gravity of the facts of the case. 179. Finally, Mrs. Petita actively sought to expedite the civil proceedings and requested that the judge recuse himself "for having failed to hand down a judgment in triple the time allowed." In this regard, it is worth pointing out that on September 14, 2004 the Judge of the Twenty-Third Civil Court declared Mr. Espín confessed (declaró confeso) for not having appeared at the hearings convened by said judge, but it was not until none months late, on June 7, 2005, that he handed down judgment. 180. Based on all the elements listed above, the Commission considers that the impunity surrounding this case was due precisely to lack of due diligence on the part of the authorities. It likewise concludes that the proceedings instituted on account of Paola's death were not conducted with a gender 200 201 In annex I, p. 190. IACHR, Report No. 133/17. Case 12.332. Merits. Margarida Maria Alves and family members. Brazil. October 25, 2017, par. 114.