114. Despite the fact that Brisa had already been subjected to three examinations (two psychological and one medical) following private consultations and that, based on the findings, the existence of sexual violence was established, and additionally a forensic gynecological examination was carried out in July 2002,210 this information was not considered sufficient evidence by the State, and she was subjected to another forensic gynecological examination, seven years after the sexual violence occurred.211 This examination was absolutely unnecessary because, given the circumstances of the crime, it did not constitute useful evidence.212 Additionally, it should be noted that what the Trial Court had in fact ordered on August 1, 2008 was evidence “on the points of expertise indicated in the accusation”213 as agreed by the lawyer for the alleged victim's family.214 However, a new gynecological examination was performed. 115. The Court notes that the State did not consider granting the already existing medical and psychological opinions sufficient evidentiary weight, which could have avoided subjecting Brisa to a re-enactment of the traumatic event already experienced, nor did it respect her right to be heard regarding the circumstances of carrying out said procedures, in accordance with her age, maturity and degree of development. Brisa's submission to two gynecological examinations did not serve the purpose of minimizing the trauma resulting from sexual violence, but instead increased it.215 In short, the Court considers that, in the circumstances of this case, the need to perform the second forensic gynecological examination was not justified. ii) Brisa’s interviews and statements during the investigations and the criminal proceedings According to Ms. Oviedo Bellot, the DNI's practice of requesting forensic medical examinations directly from the Forensic Institute was endorsed by the District Attorney's Office by putting its seal on the letter where the request is made. Cf. Statement of María Leonor Oviedo Bellot, supra (evidence file, folios 11452, 11453 and 11459). However, the certificate of the first forensic medical examination carried out through that procedure was rejected as evidence in the first and second trials because the request was not made by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Cf. Record of oral trial hearing from March 17 to 25, 2003 (evidence file, folios 10359 to 10360), and Record of oral trial hearing from September 15 to 20, 2005 (evidence file, folio 9854). In her witness statement before this Court, the prosecutor N.T.A in charge of the investigation indicated that, at the time of presenting the prosecutor's request, she decided not to order a new examination and to accept the forensic medical certificate presented by the complainants so as not to re-victimize Brisa. Cf. Declaration of N.T.A. of March 14, 2022 (evidence file, folio 11633). 210 According to Ms. Oviedo Bellot, “when the 3rd oral trial had to be carried out, the prosecutor asked the Sentencing Court No. 3 to carry out a medical examination with two points to be addressed: (1) What is an old tear of the hymen? and (2) What is the information of an old tear exam? The Court accepted the expert's proposal, allowing Dr. [M.R.C.] […] to respond to these two points with documents. As Brisa's lawyer, we are aware of the prosecutor's request for these two requirements, accepted by the Court. It is important to note that during the preparation for the third trial, the prosecutor's communication with Brisa's legal team was scarce and almost non-existent. I was not informed, nor did I agree, that a second examination should be carried out. However, what actually happened is that a new medical examination was carried out, subjecting Brisa to a totally unnecessary re-victimization without taking into account the time that has passed since the event occurred, without there being any duly motivated justification for her review." She also pointed out that “as Brisa lawyers we adhered to the Prosecutor's offer of experts […] by brief dated July 30, 2008, but we were unaware that a medical examination would be carried out, since it was not appropriate because the points of expertise were theoretical.” Cf. Statement of María Leonor Oviedo Bellot, supra (evidence file, folio 11453). 211 The expert Mesa Peluffo pointed out that “seven years after the events, she was subjected to a new examination that could not provide any evidence, technically inexplicable, which resulted in a new punishment for having reported it.” Cf. Expert opinion of Sylvia Mesa Peluffo, supra. 212 213 Cf. Order issued by Sentencing Court No. 3 on August 1, 2008 (evidence file, folio 9036). 214 Cf. Statement of María Leonor Oviedo Bellot, supra (evidence file, folio 11459). 215 In the expert opinion of expert Mesa Peluffo, “forensic medical examinations should be carried out only when they are necessary, because they can provide essential evidence for a case and even then, they should preferably be done by female doctors, trained and sensitized to perform them. The medical examination, for a girl or adolescent who has just experienced a rape, is in itself traumatic, because it reminds her of the events and if it is not done with empathy, explaining each step, it makes her relive them. Cf. Expert opinion of Sylvia Mesa Peluffo, supra. 38