authorities that would be responsible for the alleged violations. It clarified that, with respect to the then Presiding Judge of Sentencing Court No. 2 of the Superior Court of Bolivia, the Court's acquittal ruling was unanimous and, subsequently, annulled and amended, and that the alleged victim has not initiated criminal or disciplinary proceedings against it. 182. The Court declared in this judgment, inter alia, that the State failed to comply with the duty to investigate with the corresponding enhanced and strict due diligence in a case of sexual violence perpetrated against a girl, ultimately re-victimizing the victim, and allowing the case to remain in a state of absolute impunity. The Court takes into consideration that, after the public hearing of the case, the State reported that, on February 21, 2022, E.G.A. was captured for extradition purposes in Colombian territory. However, on September 2, 2022, the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia decided to cancel the arrest warrant against E.G.A. due to “the prescription of the criminal action in light of Colombian regulations”316 and ordered his immediate release. 183. This Court expresses its deep concern about the failures in the investigation and prosecution of the facts that led, due to the passage of time, to the present case remaining unpunished. In this sense, it reiterates that judicial ineffectiveness when dealing with individual cases of violence against women fosters an environment of impunity that facilitates and promotes the repetition of acts of violence in general and sends a message that violence against women is tolerated and accepted, which leads to its perpetuation and social acceptance of the phenomenon, women’s sensation of feeling unsafe, as well as their persistent mistrust in the system of administration of justice. Additionally, it recalls that girls are especially vulnerable to being victims of human rights violations and that said vulnerability can be framed and enhanced, due to factors of historical discrimination that have contributed to women and girls suffering higher rates of sexual violence, especially in the family sphere. The Court considers that inefficiency, indifference and obstacles in access to justice are discriminatory, since they do not allow women and girls to exercise the right of access to justice under conditions of equality.317 184. The Court reiterates that judicial ineffectiveness in the face of individual cases of violence against women fosters an environment of impunity that facilitates and promotes the repetition of acts of violence in general and sends a message that violence against women will be tolerated and accepted. This encourages the perpetuation of gender violence and its social acceptance, as well as women’s sensation of feeling unsafe and their persistent mistrust in the justice administration system.318 185. In the circumstances of this case, the Court considers it pertinent to order the State to keep the criminal proceedings open and promote the investigation of the case if there is any change in circumstances that allows it. 186. Furthermore, this Court established that different state authorities in charge of the investigation and trial contributed to Brisa’s revictimization, by carrying out forensic examinations, repetitive interrogations, inappropriate questions and comments that incorporated gender stereotypes, among other acts. Therefore, the Court considers it pertinent to order the State to adopt all necessary measures to, within a reasonable period of time, determine, through the competent public institutions, the possible responsibilities of the officers who, by their actions, contributed to the commission of revictimizing actions and possible procedural irregularities to the detriment of Brisa and, to the extent appropriate, apply the consequences provided for in law. 316 Cf. Decision issued by the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia on September 2, 2022 (evidence file, folios 12077 to 12088). Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, paras. 156 and 291. Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, paras. 388 and 400, and Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 125. 317 318 58