that both the medical examination of July 31, 2002, and that of August 20, 2008, were carried out by Dr. M.R.C., who was duly trained to perform medical examinations in cases of sexual violence against children and adolescents. It highlighted that the examinations were requested by the legal representative of the alleged victim and her then defense. It clarified that the expert medical certificate of July 31, 2002, was excluded from the documentary evidence because the medical-legal review was carried out following the request of Brisa's then legal advisor and not due to a prosecution requirement. Moreover, it noted that the alleged victim did not report any violation in the domestic sphere of her right to humane treatment or privacy due to the medical examinations of 2002 and 2008. 87. Third, it stated that the alleged victim's statement was made in a safe, adequate and friendly environment, by specialized professional persons. It added that the actions carried out by the Prosecutor were in accordance with demands for due diligence and protection for Brisa, and that she carried out a serious, impartial and immediate preliminary and preparatory investigation. Furthermore, it pointed out that the alleged victim did not give a statement to the aforementioned Prosecutor and did not have direct contact with her, so the facts presented against said Prosecutor lack logic and objectivity. Finally, it rejected that Bolivia had concentrated on investigating the private life of the alleged victim, and that Brisa was for several weeks or days in the waiting room and alone with E.G.A.'s witnesses. It also argued that there is no element of conviction to prove the alleged threats and intimidation by E.G.A., and, on the contrary, on the only record of alleged threats, she was told which were the appropriate and relevant steps, which, however, she did not take. 88. Fourth, the State maintained that it guaranteed access to justice, carried out a serious and impartial investigation and acted with enhanced due diligence and special protection during the investigation. It added that the judicial body conducted the trials in compliance with the judicial guarantees of the parties, and they made use of the effective judicial remedies provided for in the legal system. Furthermore, it specified that the evidentiary exclusions made in the trials were not due to an alleged deficiency in the investigation, but rather to the actions of Brisa's parents and her lawyers, who "did not manage the legal collection of evidence in accordance with criminal procedure.” Nor was the annulment of the second sentence due to alleged shortcomings or partiality in the investigation. 89. It also explained that the courts’ actions regarding the non-application of the crime of rape cannot be considered discriminatory treatment, since Brisa was not denied access to justice and the criminal proceedings have not yet concluded. Regarding the safety and enhanced protection measures, it maintained that, in order to safeguard and protect Brisa's identity and dignity, all the acts of the hearing were carried out “in a confidential manner.” 90. Finally, it pointed out that the accused’s escape and failure to appear are not attributable to the State. It indicated that “the continuity of the process against [E.G.A.] is guaranteed and is currently subject to the authorization of his extradition from Colombia.” It added that Bolivia established in its national regulations the appropriate, suitable and effective legal mechanisms for the investigation and punishment of the events affecting the legal situation of the alleged victim. B. Considerations of the Court 91. Taking into consideration the arguments of the parties and the Commission, the Court will next examine in a single chapter: 1) enhanced due diligence and the duty of special protection in investigations and criminal proceedings related to sexual violence committed against children and the duty of non-revictimization; 2) the reasonable timeframe and speed of the process; 3) consent in crimes of sexual violence and alleged discrimination in Bolivian criminal legislation; 4) discrimination in access to justice based on reasons of gender and age, as well as the status of the alleged victim as a developing individual, and 5) conclusion. 28