- 99 - CEPRESO, as well as those performed by the CNDH on May 5, 2006, did not include a gynecological examination, even though several of the women reported having undergone sexual abuse and expressly requesting this. 369 With the exception of Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno and Claudia Hernández Martínez, the women victims in this case did not receive adequate medical and gynecological treatment until June 2006, as the State has acknowledged, almost four weeks after the events occurred. Many of them were even obliged to start a hunger strike demanding that they be provided with gynecological treatment. Moreover, several of the women were deprived of liberty for months, so that they were unable to seek other means of obtaining gynecological treatment. 278. Furthermore, the Court has already noted that States have the duty to recover and preserve evidentiary material in order to assist any potential criminal investigation into those responsible.370 In this case, however, the Court notes that not only were no medical and gynecological examinations performed, but also there is no record that the authorities in charge of the investigation gathered or ordered the immediate collection of other evidence, such as the clothes worn by the women at the time of the facts. To the contrary, in some cases, this clothing disappeared or was washed by order of police personnel. 371 Only the clothing of Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno and Ana María Velasco Rodríguez was subjected to chemical analysis and this was on May 12, 2006, nine days after their detention and after it had been washed (supra para. 108). The chemical analysis of Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno’s clothes gave a positive result for the presence of semen; however, the information provided to the Court does not reveal that the State followed up on the evidence. All of which concurs with the SCJN’s assertion that “the evidence gathered in these inquiries […] reveals significant errors and omissions committed when addressing the complaints made by the women concerning these delicate issues.”372 279. Regarding the preliminary inquiry by the FEVIM, the Court notes that between June 2006 and May 2007, the victims or their representatives requested and provided evidence to be added to the case file in order to prove the corpus delicti, including the results of the examinations performed in application of the Istanbul Protocol by independent experts and by the CNDH;373 they also asked FEVIM to exercise its right to transfer jurisdiction of the ordinary crimes.374 In addition, This examination was not performed until the CNDH applied the Istanbul Protocol to Yolanda Muñoz Diosdada, Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio, María Patricia Romero Hernández, Mariana Selvas Gómez, Georgina Edith Rosales Gutiérrez, Ana María Velasco Rodríguez and Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo between two and three weeks after their detention. Also, Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio, María Patricia Romero Hernández, Mariana Selvas Gómez, Georgina Edith Rosales Gutiérrez, Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo, Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno and Claudia Hernández Martínez had recourse to the CCTI to request application of the Istanbul Protocol and this began on October 24 and 25 in the case of the last two, and between July 11 and 14 for the others (supra paras. 111 and 112). Finally, there is no record that the Istanbul Protocol was applied to Cristina Sánchez Hernández and Angélica Patricia Torres Linares. 369 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 194. 370 In this regard, the CNDH recommendation “noted that no evidence was presented of the traces left by the injuries and abuse caused by the police agents, particularly on the clothing of the victims, because when they reached and entered the prison, the same police agents took away the clothing of some of the women and obliged others to wash theirs.” CNDH Recommendation No. 38/2006 of October 16, 2006 (evidence file, folios 28528). 371 372 SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 30931). Cf. Letter of Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio of June 8, 2006 (evidence file, folio 22091); brief presented to the FEVIM by several of the women dated November 21, 2006 (evidence file, folios 8540 to 8550); brief presented to the FEVIM by the Center Prodh dated January 12, 2007 (evidence file, folios 8552 to 8556); brief presented to the FEVIM by several of the women dated February 21, 2007 (evidence file, folios 8558 and 8559), and brief presented to the FEVIM by the Center Prodh dated May 2, 2007 (evidence file, folios 8561 to 8567). 373 Among other arguments, the said request was based on the following: (i) the PGJEM had charged 25 police agents with the offense of abuse of authority; (ii) members of the Federal Preventive Police had raided private homes and arrested people 374