i) the defendant had three lawyers while the complainant only had one; some members of the jury received packages from the defense on various occasions; ii) the presiding juror received a sealed envelope from one of the defense lawyers and asked that its contents be read by the jurors in private; and iii) one of the defendant’s lawyers questioned the presence of the Special Prosecutor for Children and Adolescents. 85 The Office of the Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights concluded that “the crime committed against V.R.P. (…) has remained practically in impunity despite her having undeniably and irrefutably identified the perpetrator.”86 59. On June 30, 2003, the lawyer for Mrs. V.P.C. submitted a communication to the Disciplinary Committee of the Supreme Court of Justice alleging the “partiality and lack of professional ethics of the forensic physician, Andrés Altamirano.”87 It stated that Dr. Altamirano re-victimized V.R.P., as there were several physicians and nurses, a judge and a prosecutor present during the medical examination. 88 It maintains that V.R.P. refused to be examined due to the presence of these persons 89 and that Dr. Altamirano stated that “the girl’s entire family (…) should be examined.”90 It indicated that Dr. Altamirano’s brother participated in the proceedings as a witness for Mr. Rodríguez’s defense91 and requested that Dr. Altamirano be suspended in his functions.92 60. Mrs. V.P.C. stated that in January 2004, the judges recused themselves from the case due to “being connected by affinity to the defendant.”93 The State reported that the District Civil and Criminal Judge “recused himself from the case without explanation.”94 It added that the case was transferred to the Deputy District Civil Judge, who “also recused himself form the case and transferred it to the Jinoteca District Criminal Court.”95 61. On September 23, 2004, Mrs. V.P.C. submitted a petition to the President of the Supreme Court of Justice questioning the delay of the proceedings and requesting that the case move forward. 96 The State recognized that the District Criminal Judge took up the case on January 13, 2005. 97. 62. On February 7, 2005, the Office of the Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights issued a resolution reiterating that the case has “practically remained in impunity despite her having undeniably and irrefutably identified the perpetrator.”98 It maintained that there was documentation to support this conclusion.99 85 Annex 24. Report from the Office of the Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights of March 10, 2003. Annex G to the communication received on March 16, 2005. 86 Annex 24. Report from the Office of the Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights of March 10, 2003. Annex G to the communication received on March 16, 2005. 87 Annex 25. Official note from Margarita Palacios of June 30, 2003. Annex A to the communication received on March 16, 2005. 88 Annex 25. Official note from Margarita Palacios of June 30, 2003. Annex A to the communication received on March 16, 2005. 89 Annex 25. Official note from Margarita Palacios of June 30, 2003. Annex A to the communication received on March 16, 2005. 90 Annex 25. Official note from Margarita Palacios of June 30, 2003. Annex A to the communication received on March 16, 2005. 91 Annex 25. Official note from Margarita Palacios of June 30, 2003. Annex A to the communication received on March 16, 2005. 92 Annex 25. Official note from Margarita Palacios of June 30, 2003. Annex A to the communication received on March 16, 2005. 93 Anexo 12. Communication from the petitioner received on February 22, 2006. 94 Anexo 17. Communication from the State received on December 15, 2005. 95 Anexo 17. Communication from the State received on December 15, 2005. Anexo 26. Official note from V.P.C. of September 23, 2004. Annex C to the communication from the petitioner received on February 22, 2006. 96 97 Anexo 17. Communication from the State received on December 15, 2005. 98 Anexo 27. Report from the Office of the Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights of February 7, 2005. Annexed. 99 Anexo 27. Report from the Office of the Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights of February 7, 2005. Annexed.