for their protection.178 In the same sense, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Violence Against Women has highlighted that States are obliged to respond to acts of sexual violence against women with due diligence.179 107. The Commission has stated that States should have an appropriate legal framework of protection that is enforced effectively, and prevention policies and practices that allow effective measures to be taken in response to complaints against sexual violence.180 The Inter-American Court has emphasized that in cases of rape, insofar as possible, the investigation must try to avoid re-victimization or the re-experiencing of the profoundly traumatic experience each time the victim recalls or testifies about what happened.181 The European Court has maintained that in cases of sexual violence against children it is essential that States implement mechanisms that allow for complaints to be processed quickly. 182 108. Likewise, the Court has established that in the course of a criminal investigation for rape: i) the victim’s statement should be taken in a safe and comfortable environment, providing privacy and trust; ii) the victim’s statement should be recorded to avoid or limit the need for repetition; iii) the victim should be provided with medical, health care and psychological treatment, both on an emergency basis, and continuously if required, through an assistance protocol designed to lessen the consequences of rape; iv) a complete and detailed medical and psychological examination should be conducted immediately by suitable trained personnel, of the sex preferred by the victim insofar as this is possible, and the victim should be informed that she may be accompanied by a trusted person if she so wishes; v) the investigative tasks should be coordinated and documented and the evidence handled with care, taking sufficient samples and performing all possible tests to determine the perpetrator of the act, and obtaining other evidence such as the victim’s clothing, immediate examination of the crime scene and guaranteeing the proper chain of custody of the evidence, and vi) access to free legal assistance at all stages of the proceedings should be provided for the victim.183 109. Also, the criminal investigation should include a gender perspective and be carried out by officials with training in similar cases and in attending to victims of discrimination and gender-based violence.184 This investigation must be performed in keeping with protocols designed specifically for documenting evidence in cases of gender-based violence.185 1.5. Analysis of the investigation carried out in this case 1.5.1. Due diligence in the criminal investigation 178 Inter-American Court. Case of Rosendo Cantú and other v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, par. 177. 179 UN, Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, Report: The Integration of the Human Rights of Women and a GenderBased Perspective: Violence Against Women. The Due Diligence Standard as an Instrument for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, 2006, par. 29. 180 IACHR, Report 170/11, Case 12.578, Merits, María Isabel Véliz Franco et al., Guatemala, November 3, 2011, par. 84. 181 Inter-American Court. Case of Rosendo Cantú and other v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, par. 180. 182 ECHR, O’Keeffe v. Ireland. Judgment of January 28, 2014, par. 148. 183 Inter-American Court. Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, par. 242; and Case of Rosendo Cantú and other v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, par. 178. 184 Inter-American Court. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Series C No. 277, par. 188; and Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2006. Series C No.205, par. 455. 185 Inter-American Court. Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, par. 252.