81. Regarding gender and age-based discrimination, the representatives pointed out that discrimination manifested itself in aspects such as: (i) the unequal treatment provided by government officials, who treated Brisa in an “unequal and unfair manner because she was a teenager, a woman and a victim of incest, which is culturally accepted in Bolivian society; (ii) “inherently discriminatory” laws; (iii) the lack of legislation that classifies incest as a separate offense; (iv) the conversion of the criminal offense charged, from rape to statutory rape, by the Court of First Instance;152 (v) the questioning in the case by the officials in charge, of Brisa for being “too ‘strong’ and not “scream[ing] when she was raped”; (vi) the admission of “irrelevant” evidence that allowed statements about whether Brisa liked to wear makeup and stand around street corners “looking for men,” and (vii) the position of the Court of First Instance in interpreting that proof of an imminent threat was required for the “intimidation” element of the criminal offense, which the alleged victim, having a “'strong personality', could not experience.” 82. Regarding the right to a fair trial and judicial protection, the representatives alleged that, from the beginning of the criminal process to the present, the judicial system has deprived Brisa of her right to a fair trial and timely and effective judicial protection. They indicated that the conduct of the police, forensic doctors, and judicial authorities was partial and ineffective, and at each stage of the proceedings, there was a lack of both gender perspective and intersectional approach. 83. Regarding the right to humane treatment, they indicated that Bolivia did not respect the physical and mental integrity, nor the dignity of Brisa during the handling of her case and the judicial process. In addition, they indicated that the Bolivian judicial system also subjected Brisa to institutional violence by not guaranteeing her right to integrity and humane treatment. Specifically, the representatives stated that Brisa was subjected to two gynecological examinations: the first, “abusive”153 and the second, “unnecessary”; she endured hours of “harsh interrogations” and the “skepticism of the Prosecutor”; she had been threatened and pressured by the Prosecutor, and forced to repeat her story; she had to pay the transportation costs for the execution of E.G.A.'s arrest warrant, and she had to sit together with the witnesses for the defendant. 84. Regarding the duty to protect honor and dignity, the representatives alleged that the Bolivian judicial system subjected the alleged victim to arbitrary and abusive interference in her private life and did not respect or acknowledge her dignity, in violation of articles 11(1), 11(2) and 11(3) of the American Convention. They specified that, throughout the judicial process, the courts “systematically” focused on Brisa's behavior and personality and did not protect her from the threats and attacks from E.G.A. and his family. They added that she was subjected to multiple medical examinations while being ridiculed; she was treated as if she were guilty; she was forced to sit in a narrow room with the defendant's “hostile witnesses,” and “deeply hurtful, despicable, and irrelevant” statements were allowed to be made about Brisa […] and her family.” 85. The State first indicated that, at the time of the reported events, between 2001 and 2002, it had adopted legislative, administrative and structural measures to combat all forms of discrimination against women and of sexual violence, which proves that Bolivia did not consent or tolerate, nor did it have a culture of impunity for such acts of violence. 86. Second, the State indicated that neither the Commission nor the representatives provided reliable evidence to demonstrate the existence of violations of Articles 5(1) and 11(2) of the American Convention. He added that the “medical examinations and the criminal process were conducted with protection for the humane treatment, private life and intimacy of the alleged victim.” It maintained The representatives explained that the sentences for the crime of statutory rape are lower than those for the crime of rape and implicitly imply consent. In that sense, they pointed out that the Court relied on stereotypes of adolescent girls and focused on Brisa's alleged “strong personality” to conclude that she was not raped by E.G.A. 153 The representatives indicated that during the examination “Brisa burst into tears and asked them to stop the examination [to which,] the students [assisting the forensic doctor] laughed at her, called her ridiculous and forced her to open her legs for the exam. Brisa cried throughout the exam.” 152 27